Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!

2,107 Comments

I think he correct. The whole industry seems to be driven by the UN with a mandate to micro manage the whole Worlds Population.

DavidAppell
May 12, 2015 at 8:57 PM

Micromanage how? With noncarbon energy, you’ll still plug your toaster into the same outlet.

Brin Jenkins
May 13, 2015 at 4:01 AM

You obviously have no understanding of ohms law and transmission losses, our lack of any device to store power in GW’s, demand and load, or the economics of power generation.

DavidAppell
May 13, 2015 at 4:05 AM

Why do you care about transmission losses?
What more do you want besides an outlet to plug your toaster into?

DavidAppell
May 13, 2015 at 4:16 AM

Do you really think electricity consumers need to know Ohm’s law in order to use the electricity that comes into their home?

Brin Jenkins
May 13, 2015 at 4:26 AM

No of course not, but one who claims renewables can plug the gap should be.

DavidAppell
May 13, 2015 at 4:35 AM

Then how is the UN micromanaging the “whole Worlds Population?”

Brin Jenkins
May 13, 2015 at 6:04 AM

For that you need to understand politics and the move to install a one World order. There is much in Agenda 21 under sustainable living. It has been mooted the Global population needs to be reduced, one thought was 90%.

Now this is my last correspondence with you because of your hectoring, bullying stance on dissent. I don’t respond well to such impolite ignorance.

Ian5
May 13, 2015 at 9:48 PM

Brin: have you actually read Agenda 21? The only reference to 90% in the document is in relation to Objective 6.12b) which reads “By 1995, to reduce measles deaths by 95 per cent and reduce measles cases by 90 per cent compared with pre-immunization levels.”

” Most of the time organizations such as the UN will simply talk about “stabilizing” the global population, but as you will see in this article, there are many among the global elite that are not afraid to openly talk about a goal of reducing the population of the world to 500 million (or less). To you and I it may seem like insanity to want to get rid of more than 90 percent of the global population, but there is a growing consensus among the global elite that this is absolutely necessary for the good of the planet.”

In fact, I know plenty of people who use electricity, but don’t known Ohm’s law or the first thing about transmission losses or the economics of power generation.

Dano2
May 11, 2015 at 5:27 PM

Easy, denialists can show their beliefs have scientific support by busting out testable hypotheses, equations, models, journal articles, robust consensus, scribbles on a napkin.

Alas, denialists have none of these to support their beliefs.

Best,

D

Brin Jenkins
May 12, 2015 at 8:45 AM

Dano, If I was to agree with you I would be joining a group who are unable to explain the mechanisms involved concerning CO2 being the cause of Global Warming, I would then be part of the great consensus who rely on opinion, but are unable to prove their hypothesis.

Absolutely meaningless unless you understand, and can show that what you say is possible and logical, can you?

Dano2
May 12, 2015 at 9:55 AM

Um, the mechanisms behind CO2 as a GHG were first explained in the 1850s, a Nobel awarded in the 1890s, the chemistry of fossil fuel carbon in the atmosphere was completed in the 1970s…

So who knows what you are trying to say here.

Best,

D

Brin Jenkins
May 12, 2015 at 1:12 PM

Please explain why you understand warming to be man made, I have looked and can see no way in which CO2 is responsible. I understand that climate changes, it always has. I also believe in conservation and cutting out waste. But Co2 is water soluble plant food released by heating water. That being so how can it also be the cause of heat?

I also dispute that our atmosphere acts like a glass green house. The action of heat being radiated infrom the Sun and warming air that circulates to the glass and around is different. It is -40degrees at 38.000 ft over Europe. Mountain tops are always cooler than at ground level, and the air is hot just under the glass of a green house.

I think we need to know and understand the mechanism, otherwise we are agreeing to a consensus of others who don’t know.

Dano2
May 12, 2015 at 1:18 PM

Greenhouse gas. Look it up.

Without CO2 in the atmosphere, the planet would be an ice ball with maybe some slush around the equator.

You’ll learn this in 10th-11th grade science/physics. Good luck and take your prereqs in 9th-10th grade so you can take physics.

Best,

D

Brin Jenkins
May 12, 2015 at 4:15 PM

I explain everything I understand and not give links to others opinions.

Co2 is the most soluble of all gases, the colder the water the more CO2 is held.

Taking two glasses of water put one in your fridge and the other in a warm place. Within a few mins bubbles appear in the warming glass. Dissolved gas is released, by heat. The one in the fridge has no bubbles retaining its gas. We have shown the cause heat, and the effect of heating gas is released. You say gas can be a cause of heating? This reverses a cause and its effect, if you understand how this can be, please explain how this happens?

Dano2
May 12, 2015 at 4:50 PM

Let us know when you get to your very first physics class.

Best,

D

Brin Jenkins
May 12, 2015 at 5:20 PM

Troll

Dano2
May 12, 2015 at 5:21 PM

No need to lash out when someone points out your utter lack of knowledge or education on a comment you made.

Best,

D

Brin Jenkins
May 12, 2015 at 5:53 PM

You said it was easy to convince a critic but behaved like a troll. You have not explained your understanding only insulted me. So be it!

Dano2
May 12, 2015 at 6:01 PM

You said it was easy to convince a critic

No I didn’t. I stated:

denialists can show their beliefs have scientific support by busting out testable hypotheses, equations, models, journal articles, robust consensus, scribbles on a napkin.

Alas, denialists have none of these to support their beliefs.

And you cannot show science supports your beliefs, as we see.

Best,

D

Brin Jenkins
May 12, 2015 at 6:12 PM

Then explain how exactly you think CO2 causes Global Warming. What is the mechanism that allows heat in but not out of the atmosphere? Simple question but will you answer?

Dano2
May 12, 2015 at 6:27 PM

CO2 is a GHG. And some heat goes out of the atm into space. No GHGs in the atmosphere, and we aren’t here.

Brin: The Earth emits infrared radiation. CO2 absorbs it. The CO2 then re-emits that radiation, and some of it goes downward. That warms the surface.

It’s this mechanism that keeps the Earth’s surface about 30 C warmer than the sun can make it.

Brin Jenkins
May 13, 2015 at 3:30 AM

David that action has been claimed but any amount involved is minor and will be overridden by the negative feed back of plant growth. Last week I visited Mount Etna which is always bubbling away releasing CO2. The plant growth on the slopes below the tree line is incredible, Sicily is famed for its fertility and this is the blessing its Volcanos bestow. Co2 is locked into plant storage producing both Oxogen and stored energy as you know. Scilly is actually cooler than Italy in Summer, not warmer through re radiation as your theory suggests it should. I’m not aware of CO2 Scilly’s concentrations being monitored, but I suspect they must be.

The Venus CO2 mechanism is described in the Planke effect (I think thats the spelling) This was demonstrated, but the temperature was seemingly cherry red on Venus. Far hotter, and the effect is not apparent at lower temperatures it seems. Climate changes plotted from reconstructed data, overlaid by Sun spot activity suggests the peaks and troughs co-incide, I understand Sunspot activity is only a relatively recent study, I met a Physicist in California in the late 1970’s researching this. Climate change I believe to be entirely Solar driven and directly so.

Our atmosphere acts as an insulation blanket, with increased cloud cover (water vapor) the planets temp drops dramatically and swiftly. As a cloud clears the suns rays warm the surface quickly. Insulation works both ways stopping incoming radiation and re-radadiation.

To convince me would require a credible explanation by some real person who knows the mechanism, not links.

It seems obvious that VooDude is showing that even the IPCC doesn’t agree with you, and even they believe that cool.

The IPCC apparently weren’t all that happy with the four estimates they had, since they didn’t average them, but instead picked the one showing the least cooling effect.
The other three estimates show three to five times as much net cooling as the estimate they picked.

DavidAppell
May 11, 2016 at 5:56 PM

When I wrote, “3. When EM radiation is absorbed by an object, does that object gain the radiation’s energy?”

It takes a lot of reading, DA. Have you read them? …besides the abstract?

Voodude
May 18, 2015 at 1:31 PM

Plants absorb CO2. Plant’s “work ethic” (NPP) has been going up, 15%-25% … Plants now store more CO2 per season than they used to.

DavidAppell
May 18, 2015 at 2:25 PM

Yes, NPP has been going up. So what? Do you mean that plants taking more CO2 out of the air is a negative feedback? The word “feedback” usually means a reaction to the temperature change that causes a secondary change in temperature….. This is a feedback in the carbon cycle, and one that is well known and accounted for in the big climate models.

VooDude
April 6, 2016 at 3:33 PM

Let’s take a look at the literature, and see …

Most models’ simulations (during concentration-driven scenarios) do not include any feedback, from CO2 fertilization of plants, or changes of carbon stored in the oceans, since the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is defined, and fixed, by the scenario.

”Technically, there is no carbon cycle feedback in concentration-driven simulations [CMIP5], since changes in the amount of carbon stored in the ocean and on land do not influence the atmospheric CO2 concentration.”

”We note that none of the models considered here, implement a sensitivity of biological production to increasing carbon availability (e.g., a change in organic carbon to nutrients ratio in organic matter) as, for instance, in Oschlies et al. (2008) or Tagliabue et al. (2011) with implications for carbon uptake. Likewise, none of the models implement a sensitivity of calcification to decreasing seawater pH.”

”The future of the land carbon cycle is significantly more uncertain, even for a given RCP scenario. There is no overall agreement across models on the sign of the land carbon sink by the end of the 21st century, …”

They cannot even agree on the polarity, being a plus, or a minus, let alone the magnitude of the land carbon sink. Scientists disagree on whether the land will emit carbon dioxide, or store it.

You are a bamboozler. You try to fool everyone with links and italics and bold fonts. Yet ever time I’ve looked into one of your links I find that you either misrepresented the paper or failed to provide complete info, and in no cases do the papers disprove that the sun isn’t responsible for modern warming.

You can probably fool some of the ill-informed. You can’t fool me or anyone who knows the science and can read scientific papers for themselves.

VooDude
April 7, 2016 at 12:47 PM

Well, come back with specifics. A general taint of ” You try to fool everyone…” or “I find that you either misrepresented the paper …” aren’t detailed enough to rebut.
… wait, WHAT??
IS THAT AN ADMISSION … that you have not read the paper that I cited, before?“Yet ever time I’ve looked into one of your links…” Ha! You’ve never read the paper before. You’re not familiar with the subject, unless it has been outlined for you by “skeptical science” …

“…who knows the science and can read scientific papers for themselves.”
But, you don’t “know the science” except for a force-fed viewpoint from “SkS”
But, you don’t read the scientific papers … else my words would not surprise you so…

“…fool some of the ill-informed. You can’t fool me…”
Oh, gee, an exact quote from the authors of the paper, with quote marks and italics, so you won’t be confused … bibliographic citations, mostly with accompanying URLs … how, exactly, is that fooling anyone?

DavidAppell
April 7, 2016 at 5:42 PM

No, I didn’t read your paper, because I’ve looked at too many others you cited and learned that you’re a bamboozler. You have no credibility.

DavidAppell
May 13, 2015 at 3:37 AM

“Scilly is actually cooler than Italy in Summer, not warmer through re radiation as your theory suggests it should.”

This is a very poor understanding of how climate change works.
What is the temperature trend in Sicily?

Brin Jenkins
May 13, 2015 at 4:29 AM

Look it up, I lost interest in corresponding with such a rude and ignorant assailant. This is a blog where ideas are discussed. You treat it like a battle field. GAGS.

DavidAppell
May 13, 2015 at 4:34 AM

I think you can’t prove your claim, and don’t like being asked to do so.

I see this all the time from climate change deniers — big opinions, until they’re asked to justify them, and then they can’t.

Believer
May 15, 2015 at 2:51 PM

David is just another one those who get on these blogs so they can have fun arguing. They just use their debate tactics to win an non win able argument.

He does love to argue, even when he’s been repeatedly decisively proven wrong.

DavidAppell
May 13, 2015 at 3:38 AM

“The Venus CO2 mechanism is described in the Planke effect (I think thats the spelling) This was demonstrated, but the temperature was seemingly cherry red on Venus. Far hotter, and the effect is not apparent at lower temperatures it seems.”

This is pure gobbleygook. Gibberish.
You clearly don’t understand any of the science at all.
And yet you have the audacity to pronounce it wrong.
Where do you get such confidence?

Brin Jenkins
May 13, 2015 at 3:57 AM

Well you have not corrected matters with your explanation. You have only attacked and never once explained. Typical of a paid lackey.

DavidAppell
May 13, 2015 at 4:07 AM

Stop insinuating I’m a “paid lackey” just because I disagree with you.
It’s bad form, and does nothing to bolster your argument.

Brin Jenkins
May 13, 2015 at 4:22 AM

Ok, your just a shouter with little ability to debate or explain. Thanks for you illustrations.

DavidAppell
May 13, 2015 at 4:27 AM

I’ve explained far more than you have.
Why is the basic mechanism of global warming by CO2 wrong?

Because it is based on false assumptions based on laboratory conditions that don’t exist in the real world. Sure, if our atmosphere was primarily CO2 it would be something – but it’ isn’t, nor is the relatively minuscule increase in atmospheric CO2 anything that we need to worry about.

DavidAppell
December 28, 2015 at 6:12 PM

CO2 doesn’t need to be a majority of the atmosphere to have a major effect on climate. In fact, without the pre-industrial level of CO2 the planet wouldn’t even be habitable.

PS: Clouds aren’t water vapor. Water vapor is not clouds.
Learn a little bit of science, please.

Johnstoirvin
May 16, 2015 at 1:45 PM

Appell, you’re either an idiot or a willfully lying troublemaker. Clouds are the visible water vapor in the atmosphere and humidity is the invisible water vapor! And to make it really simple for you so you can understand, rain is a whole bunch of water vapor all in one drop.

He is playing semantic games – actually though clouds are CONDENSED water vapor (hence no longer water vapor) but I’m not arguing with you, just pointing out the tiny, insignificant flaw that he and the other climate alarmists here are capitalizing on. Water vapor is invisible, for the most part. Condensed water vapor, in the form of clouds, isn’t.

Voodude
May 18, 2015 at 1:29 PM

Clouds aren’t water vapour … water vapour is not clouds…
Yet water vapour totally dominates, as a greenhouse gas, over CO2, and Clouds thermostatically regulate the planet’s temperature.

DavidAppell
May 18, 2015 at 2:27 PM

Water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing. That is, its concentration in the atmosphere doesn’t change, unless the temperature changes first. Then water vapor adjusts accordingly. For AGW, it’s a strong positive feedback, because the increase with temperature is exponential.

And yet, it is a strong NEGATIVE feedback, as there is no runaway greenhouse effect as their would have to be were your ridiculous claims correct. Water vapor contributes both positive and negative feebacks, but the net effect, clearly, since the temperature remains relatively stable, is a negative, self-limiting one.

DavidAppell
December 28, 2015 at 6:09 PM

Wrong. The water vapor feedback is strongly positive.

The Earth isn’t close enough to the Sun to undergo a runaway greenhouse effect. Though that will happen in several hundred million years.

So you’re claiming that those who cited the warming that came along with the super El Niño, that caused them to say that 2015 was the hottest year on record so far, were lying?

I mean, if so you’re probably right – I doubt it was the hottest year, but you’re sending mixed messages here. You’re coming off like someone who is full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism.

Plus you didn’t read what I posted. Here, let’s review:

Water vapor contributes both positive and negative feebacks, but the net effect, clearly, since the temperature remains relatively stable, is a negative, self-limiting one.

When you bother to review all the physical processes that occur with increased evaporation, you get an idea why, even though it is the most powerful, most effective, most important greenhouse gas, water vapor also acts to REDUCE warming.

But in answer to your question, “Where is the water vapor feedback”, note that the “warm” period ended and a “cold” period set in as the negative effects of the water vapor eventually overwhelmed the positive effects.

Do you need me to explain what those effects are, or do you think you can figure some of them out for yourself?

Clouds are condensed water vapor, a strong NEGATIVE feedback, as you and I both seem to know. Warming does produce more evaporation – evaporation is a process that transports a great deal of heat right past all that waiting CO2, the water vapor condenses (releasing the heat) and forms clouds or precipitation…

BigWaveDave
May 4, 2016 at 7:44 PM

Clouds are visible because they contain drops or droplets of liquid water, or crystals, flakes or hail stones of solid water.

Clouds are capable of absorbing a radiation from a broad spectrum, both from insolation, and from other parts of the atmosphere or surface. The radiation they emit depends on their temperature,

The latent heats of evaporation and sublimation are enormous compared with the specific heats of ice, water, steam (aka water vapor) and atmospheric gas.

This allows clouds to absorb or emit radiation for relatively long durations without appreciably changing temperature.

Having an authentic name, representing a real research institution, and offering actual scientific results are apparently not required for publication in many open access journals, Science has found. A completely invented scientist—“Ocorrafoo Cobange”—who worked at a fabricated institution—“the Wassee Institute of Medicine in Asmara”—was able to get the same terribly faked paper accepted for publication in 157 journals.

Checking in with sources inside in the Ketchum camp, we were able to confirm from multiple persons that the paper is finished and has finally passed peer review. Now all Ketchum is waiting for is a publication date, and she has no idea when that is coming. This is great news!

One of the unethical things revealed in the climategate email release was that those involved were plotting to, and deliberately did, pervert the peer review system to prevent perfectly valid papers, that they simply did not like, from being published.

DavidAppell
December 28, 2015 at 6:00 PM

Bigfoot??? Fluff.

The hockey stick has been replicated and reproduced many times now, some using independent mathemathical methods.

Actually, even Mann admits the blade of his “hockey schtick” is broken:

It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims. A large body of scientific evidence — amassed before and since the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change indicates that the surface warming slowdown, also sometimes referred to in the literature as the hiatus, was due to the combined effects of internal decadal variability and natural forcing.

Mann himself, along with a number of other climate scientists, just admitted the blade of the hockey schtick is BROKEN:

It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims. A large body of scientific evidence — amassed before and since the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change indicates that the surface warming slowdown, also sometimes referred to in the literature as the hiatus, was due to the combined effects of internal decadal variability and natural forcing.

”The measurements of SOVAP in the summer of 2010, yielded a TSI value of 1362.1W/m^2 with an uncertainty of ±2.4W/m^2 (k=1 ). During the periods of November 2010 and January 2013, the amplitude of the changes in TSI has been of the order of 0.18%, corresponding to a range of about 2.4W/m^2 .”

Compare Meftah’s measurement of amplitude changes of 2.4W to the ¾W that is the whole of “Global Warming” …

”The radiative output of the Sun was termed the ‘solar constant’ until relatively recently when solar monitoring by satellite experiments revealed that it varies continuously. Commencing with the NIMBUS-7 spacecraft in the late nineteen seventies, … exhibits variations on all time scales – from minutes to decades …”

”While these observations are sufficiently stable over time to trace solar cycle variability, only about 0.1 % of the overall level, the measurements from the various instruments are offset from one another by a greater margin, reflecting the uncertainty in the absolute radiometry.”

”The direct observation of solar irradiance is a challenging endeavour. At present, the body of spaceborne measurements is still afflicted by uncertainties in the absolute radiometry,…”

Herrera, VM Velasco, B. Mendoza, and G. Velasco Herrera 2015. “Reconstruction and prediction of the total solar irradiance: From the Medieval Warm Period to the 21st century.”New Astronomy

So, if, in space, these scientists cannot absolutely measure the TSI closer than about 4W/m^2, and then say, “Obviously, the sun isn’t the cause” when the total calculated imbalance of the earth (¾W/m^2) is eight times smaller than the error bars on the TSI …

They are lying to us. There is no way that the TSI measurements tell us that the sun is not causing “Global Warming” … The numbers just don’t add up. Now, I’m not saying the sun is causing, or not causing, what is though of as “Global Warming” … I’m just saying that the scientists can’t find their butts, even if they use both hands, metaphorically speaking of the TSI and ¾W of “warming”.

DavidAppell
March 30, 2016 at 8:58 PM

Right — the sun is not responsible for modern warming.

VooDude
March 30, 2016 at 9:11 PM

Prove that the sun is not the cause. Cite your sources, and their accuracy.

DavidAppell
March 30, 2016 at 9:30 PM

Easy – the Sun’s irradiance has been on a slowly declining trend since the 1960s.

IN 2014, Greg Kopp published: ”…These levels of accuracy and stability are not achieved with the existing SSI instruments (Skupin et al. 2005; Harder et al. 2009), and there is considerable uncertainty in the long-term stabilities of the measurements, leading to disparate conclusions of solar variability, even on solar cycle time scales (Matthes 2011; Lean & DeLand 2012). While perhaps not yet achieving the accuracy or stability requirements for true climate studies, the short duration visible and near-infrared SSI record is proving valuable for short-term solar variability effects on the Earth’s atmosphere…”

”The relative solar variability, at these shorter wavelengths, is much greater than in the visible, and the sensitivity of the Earth’s atmosphere to variations in this spectral region, is large.”

Kopp, Greg 2014. “An assessment of the solar irradiance record for climate studies.” <i<Journal of Space Weather and Space Climate

”This shows that current knowledge of variations in spectral irradiance is not sufficient to warrant robust conclusions concerning the impact of solar variability on the atmosphere and climate.”

”… While TSI is a good indicator of the total solar forcing on the climate, it cannot be used to understand the physical interaction between the solar radiation and the atmosphere, since spectral solar irradiance (SSI) variability, and the altitude in the atmosphere, at which it is absorbed, is highly wavelength-dependent

”… (PMOD) composite of TSI observations (Fröhlich 2006) and the modelled TSI by Ball et al. (2012) are consistent, within the error bars, with no change between the last three minima.” Not quite what DA claims, from the sixties, but … close.

”While considerable progress has been made in determining the absolute value of the total solar irradiance (Kopp and Lean 2011), the absolute spectral solar irradiance is still poorly constrained and a number of different ‘standard’ absolute solar spectra are available (see Thuillier et al. (2003) for a discussion of this).”

”ISS/SOLSPEC has been calibrated to an absolute scale at the Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB) using the BB3200pg blackbody radiator (Sperfeld et al., 1998). Over the whole spectral range, SOLSPEC accuracy is within 2 to 3%[about 27 W/m^2 to about 40 W/m^2].”

”Fröhlich and Lean (1998) state that the absolute measurements of the early radiometers are uncertain to about 0.4%, which corresponds to 5.5 W/m^2 . ”

”However, the SORCE/TIM experiment proved to be a new outlier. Lawrence et al. (2003) claim an uncertainty of 0.5 W/m^2 , i.e. accurate to 350 ppm. Because SORCE/TIM is 4.5 and 5 W/m^2 below SOHO/VIRGO and ACRIM/ACRIM-III, respectively, the uncertainties given by the instrument teams do not overlap (Kopp and Lean, 2011).”

1. You are confusing the lower stratosphere (which is what RSS and UAH measure) with the stratosphere.
2. The effects of ozone loss must be accounted for when looking for stratospheric cooling due to GHGs.

VooDude
April 20, 2016 at 10:12 AM

Ok, so where is YOUR chart showing the onset or continuation of “stratospheric cooling”?

DavidAppell
April 20, 2016 at 10:01 PM

“Ok, so where is YOUR chart showing the onset or continuation of “stratospheric cooling”?”

”…even though TSI varies only by about 0.1 % over the solar cycle, larger variations of several percent occur in the UV part of the spectrum,… are important for photochemical processes (e.g. Haigh, 1994). … statistically significant ozone, temperature, and zonal wind solar signals in the stratosphere (Austin et al., 2008; Gray et al., 2010).”

”TSI alone, does not adequately describe the solar forcing on the atmosphere, and therefore, SSI variations have to be taken into account, in climate models.”

DavidAppell
April 20, 2016 at 10:19 PM

Again you are attempting to hoodwink.

From the Conclusions section of Ermolli et al:

“Most models nowadays reproduce SSI measurements on short-term timescales fairly well. However, uncertainties in SSI changes still remain on long-term timescales and in the 220–400 nm band, which is of particular interest because of its impact on stratospheric ozone. These modelled or observed variations in the SSI are today used as inputs to CCM simulations that are capable of properly reproducing most aspects of stratospheric heating and point to the existence of a significant impact of solar variability on climate. However, major uncertainties remain in their detailed description, in which nonlinear couplings and regional effects can play an important role.”

VooDude
April 21, 2016 at 1:50 AM

DA, please note, that, when making a citation, I’m simply referring you to that paper as the source of what I indicated that I found in that paper. It does not mean that I agree with, or even disagree with, the conclusions of the authors. I am, on the other hand, using the weight of the other scientists, in that my opinion is, well, an opinion, but, that opinion is fortified by the authors. I often use this example: I find some Earth Sciences paper from a long, long time ago. The authors are the first, in literature, to have ‘discovered’ that water is wet. I want to add weight to my opinion that ‘water is wet’, so I cite that ancient paper. However, that paper also concludes that the earth is flat, and sitting on the back of a giant turtle. So, from the perspective of the discovery of ‘water is wet’ – the authors deserve the credit of having discovered that, or, just so I can proclaim, ‘water is wet, and I’m not the only person who thinks so!’ … thus adding weight to my opinion. Just because I cite those authors as my source for the discovery that ‘water is wet’ does not also include that I agree, the world is flat. It is a citation, not an endorsement!

So, the TSI is the integral of the SSI over the entire spectrum. Let’s say TSI = A+B+Y+Z The TSI doesn’t vary much, but the SSI has parts that do vary, but when “Y” varies up, “Z” varies, but down. So the TSI remains the same … but SSI does vary. As Ermolli states, some of that spectra affects stratospheric ozone, which you just pointed out, has significance. Stay focused, and don’t go off on a rant about how the world is not flat, just because I pointed out that ‘water is wet’.

DavidAppell
April 22, 2016 at 12:06 AM

The paper you gave said the data uncertainties were too large for any conclusions.

VooDude
April 22, 2016 at 10:16 AM

The science is certainly not ‘settled’.

DavidAppell
April 23, 2016 at 5:00 PM

The science is certainly settled enough — CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and more of it creates more of a greenhouse effect.

Who do you think you are fooling with such denials?

BigWaveDave
April 23, 2016 at 8:50 PM

If the “science” is settled, what is the science, and what does a greenhouse gas physically do?

I’m not fooling. There is no theory supporting the mistaken idea that “greenhouse gasses” determine or explain the surface temperature.

There are charlatans promoting the “greenhouse gas” nonsense, and fools who believe them.

DavidAppell
April 23, 2016 at 9:18 PM

“…what does a greenhouse gas physically do?”

How is it you got to be an expert in physics yet you never understood this basic piece of science?

BigWaveDave
April 26, 2016 at 4:36 AM

What physics do you think the “greenhouse gas” hypothesis is a basic piece of?

You can give no physical explanation of how it is supposed to work other than your non physical assertion that radiation from a cold gas in the sky irradiates and warms warmer gasses and surfaces, but you offer no example where this ever occurs.

Ridiculous.

VooDude
April 24, 2016 at 6:32 PM

There is no proof that increased atmospheric CO2 causes increased temperatures. None.
I’m surprised that you espouse such a simple explanation for such a complex interaction. Sure, in Tyndall’s brass tube, more CO2 produces more “effect” … the argument, more accurately, could be stated as: “increasing Carbon Dioxide in Earth’s will result in increasing surface temperature, if nothing else changed“. However, nothing remains the same. Things DO change – like cloud cover, and latent heat transport – and the amount of warming theoretically attributable to an increase, above “pre-industrial” CO2 levels is vanishingly small, utterly swamped (lost in the noise) by many other dynamic processes. Water, in all its phases, has the dominant role in shaping our climate.

Easily demonstrated in a brass tube, as was done by the great experimental physicist John Tyndall, 150 years ago, when he experimentally verified infrared opacity in various gases. However, the gases in Tyndall’s tube did not convect, advect, evaporate, condense, or freeze, as things do in a real atmosphere. Tyndall measured the infrared opacity of the gases… he made no attempt to measure how water vapour acts to thermostatically regulate planet earth, through clouds and thunderstorms, irrespective of the infrared absorption properties that it has.

Schneider75: “Classical studies of potential CO2 effects on climate were made by Chamberlin (1899), and Arrhenius (1903), and their ideas have given way to a plethora of follow-up studies. Plass (1961, among others) computed the surface temperature response of doubling CO2 with a surface-energy balance calculation. His earlier estimates were sharply contested by Kaplan. (1961 0), who maintained that inclusion of cloudiness would reduce Plass’ estimate considerably. Moller (1963) attempted to reconcile these conflicts, but heightened interest further, by arguing that the atmosphere tends to conserve relative, rather than absolute, humidity. However, all of these authors, though incorporating different radiation models, and atmospheric assumptions, shared one, crucial, assumption [as pointed out by Manabe and Weatherald ]: their surface temperature estimates were based on computations of changes in the surface energy budget, primarily caused by the increased downward IR flux reaching the surface, resulting from increased atmospheric IR opacity, from increased CO2; that is, they computed an equilibrium condition for the earth’s surface, rather than for the earth-atmosphere system as a whole. Manabe and Wetherald showed that none of those authors adequately included, in their surface energy-budgets, the mixing effects of vertical heat transport by atmospheric motions.”
Schneider, Stephen H. 1975 “On the carbon dioxide-climate confusion.”Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences

Philipona et al. 2004 – Twelve years ago and nobody has heard of this? For you, DA, I will read it.

Feldman 2015: Using a very narrow bandwidth, under exclusive, very specific “clear sky” conditions, this essentially replicates Tyndall’s brass tube, but in the sky. While Feldman does show that increasing CO2 apparently correlates to increased downward long-wave radiation, in the myopic narrow spectrum (~600/cm – ~800/cm). There is no correlation proffered as to surface temperature variations – ie, no proof that the observed increase in downward, longwave, narrow-spectrum radiation caused any heating of anything.

As a counter, the work of Dong, Xiquan, Baike Xi, and Patrick Minnis 2006. “Observational evidence of changes in water vapor, clouds, and radiation at the ARM SGP site.”Geophysical Research Letters http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2006GL027132/full
shows, under “all-sky” conditions, using the same kind of AERI ARM equipment, that the downward, long-wave radiation (under a larger consideration of spectrum, 200/cm – 2500/cm),
shows a decrease, not an increase.

So what? I can’t help it if you don’t need proof to believe something. It gets annoying though, when you continue to argue without it.

VooDude
April 24, 2016 at 7:04 PM

The usual alarmist pap and drivel.

DavidAppell
April 22, 2016 at 12:12 AM

In the end and above all, climate is a matter of energy conservation. A different SSI but the same TSI doesn’t pump any more energy into the Earth’s system. If that can’t account for the vast majority of this heat increase — the ocean — then the changes in SSI aren’t creating the observed changes.

If you think changes in SSI are warming the Earth’s ocean, then prove it.

VooDude
April 22, 2016 at 10:15 AM

“A different SSI but the same TSI doesn’t pump any more energy into the Earth’s system.”

You cannot seriously think that solar short-wave infrared, the visible, the ultraviolet, soft and hard X-rays, and particle showers all interact with Earth’s environment in exactly the same way …

If you think changes in SSI does not pump any more energy into the Earth’s system, then you are ignoring the reflectivity of the earth’s albedo, which changes with the incident spectra, particularly in the range above the visible-light band.

“…changes in SSI are warming the Earth’s ocean, then prove it.” DA, you’re just going to have to accept that the science is not settled. SSI is not known, within the required accuracy.

”Long-term variations, such as the solar magnetic cycle modulation, have a more marked impact on the shorter wavelengths, especially in the XUV and EUV ranges where the intrinsic variability can reach 100%–1000% as shown in Figure 1.”… ”Solar irradiance in the UV (UltraViolet) range is a key parameter for space climate studies (Lilensten et al. 2008; Mikhailov et al. 2012).” … ”The solar spectral variability in the UV is dynamic, and affects the thermosphere/ionosphere system differently on various time scales.” … ”The solar UV flux with the magnetospheric energetic inputs induces a large panel of processes such as ionization, dissociation, or excitation of the gases in the upper atmosphere. These processes induce electron production and photo-excitation that can be measured remotely, and give rise to a large panel of observable quantities.” Barthelemy, Mathieu, and Gaël Cessateur 2014. “Sensitivity of upper atmospheric emissions calculations to solar/stellar UV flux.”Journal of Space Weather and Space Climate

Attempts to reproduce, by proxy, the SSI on earth, have failed:

”… none of the current solar proxies can properly reconstruct the solar UV irradiance, on all timescales (Dudok de Wit et al. 2009), making direct observations of the UV irradiance mandatory for all space weather applications (Lilensten et al. 2008).” Cessateur 2016

DavidAppell
April 23, 2016 at 5:14 PM

Simple: prove that a different SSI is responsible for modern warming — or some part of it.

Where is the PROOF?

DavidAppell
April 23, 2016 at 5:27 PM

“DA, you’re just going to have to accept that the science is not settled. SSI is not known, within the required accuracy.”

”This shows that current knowledge of variations in spectral irradiance is not sufficient to warrant robust conclusions concerning the impact of solar variability on the atmosphere and climate.” … ”While TSI is a good indicator of the total solar forcing on the climate, it cannot be used to understand the physical interaction between the solar radiation and the atmosphere, since spectral solar irradiance (SSI) variability, and the altitude in the atmosphere, at which it is absorbed, is highly wavelength-dependent (Meier 1991; Lean et al. 1997; Krivova et al. 2006). There is a growing body of evidence to suggest that TSI, and as a consequence SSI, may vary on secular timescales exceeding the 11-year solar cycle.”…”While considerable progress has been made in determining the absolute value of the total solar irradiance (Kopp and Lean 2011), the absolute spectral solar irradiance is still poorly constrained and a number of different ‘standard’ absolute solar spectra are available (see Thuillier et al. (2003) for a discussion of this).” Ball, William T., et al. 2014 “A new SATIRE-S spectral solar irradiance reconstruction for solar cycles 21–23 and its implications for stratospheric ozone.”

”101 The extant database of space era observations of TSI and SSI (for TSI, 37 years or 102 approximately 3 solar cycles and less for SSI) lacks the length and, with respect to SSI, the stability to quantify true solar variability over multiple 11-year solar activity cycles. Most of the individual observations made thus far have neither sufficiently small uncertainties nor adequate repeatability to achieve the measurement requirements for a climate data record of total and spectral solar irradiance.”…”…108 the challenge is to detect variations of less than 0.01% per decade in TSI and 0.1-0.5% per decade for SSI…” Coddington, O., et al. 2015 “A Solar Irradiance Climate Data Record.”Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society

”… levels of accuracy and stability are not achieved with the existing SSI instruments (Skupin et al. 2005; Harder et al. 2009), and there is considerable uncertainty in the long-term stabilities of the measurements, leading to disparate conclusions of solar variability, even on solar cycle time scales (Matthes 2011; Lean & DeLand 2012).”…”The relative solar variability, at these shorter wavelengths, is much greater than in the visible, and the sensitivity of the Earth’s atmosphere to variations in this spectral region, is large.” Kopp, Greg 2014. “An assessment of the solar irradiance record for climate studies.”Journal of Space Weather and Space Climate

“…In the UV, the amplitude of the variations is much higher, with relative changes of 1 to 20% observed in the UV band … In the visible and near infrared bands, the amplitude of the variations rarely exceeds 0.5% over a solar cycle. Spectral solar irradiance (SSI) … changes are more delicate to be observed during the 11- year cycle. Indeed, the degradation of the instruments limits this observation, and more particularly in the UV…” Meftah, Mustapha, et al. 2014 “Sovap/picard, a spaceborne radiometer to measure the total solar irradiance.”Solar Physics

”Nevertheless, we need to keep in mind that the true nature of solar variability lies in the magnetic field of the Sun itself.” Zacharias, Pia 2014. “An Independent Review of Existing Total Solar Irradiance Records.”Surveys in Geophysics

”Changes in the spectral solar irradiance (SSI) are a key driver of the variability of the Earth’s environment, strongly affecting the upper atmosphere, but also impacting climate. However, its measurements have been sparse and of different quality.” Schöll, Micha, et al. 2016 “Making of a solar spectral irradiance dataset I: observations, uncertainties, and methods.”Journal of Space Weather and Space Climate

DavidAppell
April 23, 2016 at 5:29 PM

Yes — huge uncertainties.

So you have no justification in assuming the rates are high enough to produce meaningful warming.

It’s all just speculation, while meantime we have good science on the warming caused by GHGs.

BigWaveDave
April 23, 2016 at 9:27 PM

“…we have good science on the warming caused by GHGs.”

What “good science” do you have?

DavidAppell
April 23, 2016 at 9:33 PM

You’re avoiding the fundamental questions again.

3. When EM radiation is absorbed by an object, does that object gain the radiation’s energy?

BigWaveDave
April 23, 2016 at 9:58 PM

An object doesn’t absorb radiation from a cooler source.

DavidAppell
April 23, 2016 at 10:02 PM

“An object doesn’t absorb radiation from a cooler source.”

How does the object know the temperature of the cooler source?

BigWaveDave
April 23, 2016 at 11:21 PM

Please show some real life (testable and on Earth) example where a warmer object absorbs and is warmed by radiation from a cooler source. How does the cooler object’s radiation excite the warmer object?

BigWaveDave
April 24, 2016 at 8:18 PM

Why would it care?

DavidAppell
April 29, 2016 at 5:18 PM

>> How does the object know the temperature of the cooler source? <<
"Why would it care?"

You tell me — you're the one who claimed that radiation isn't always absorbed, like if it came from a colder object.

BigWaveDave
April 30, 2016 at 8:53 AM

Radiation from a colder object just doesn’t excite it.

DavidAppell
May 2, 2016 at 6:32 PM

“Radiation from a colder object just doesn’t excite it.”

Why not?

DavidAppell
May 2, 2016 at 6:33 PM

“Radiation from a colder object just doesn’t excite it.”

How does the radiated photon (or wave, if you like) know the temperature of the object that emitted it?

Such a new quantum number would be absolutely shocking to every scientist alive today. Because there is no experimental proof of this.

BigWaveDave
May 2, 2016 at 6:54 PM

I take it by your efforts to deflect, that you can cite no real world example of cold heating hot , correct?

DavidAppell
May 2, 2016 at 7:15 PM

Stop avoiding the question.

How can you see ice?

DavidAppell
May 2, 2016 at 6:34 PM

“Radiation from a colder object just doesn’t excite it.”

Ice radiates.
It is colder than you.
So how can you see it, if no radiation from it enters your eyeball?

BigWaveDave
April 28, 2016 at 6:38 AM

What do your beliefs about EM have to do why you can present no example of cold warming hot in the real world?

DavidAppell
April 29, 2016 at 5:11 PM

“What do your beliefs about EM have to do why you can present no example of cold warming hot in the real world?”

It’s happening all around you, all the time, everywhere, constantly.

Literally, everywhere.

VooDude
April 24, 2016 at 7:08 PM

Climate scientists “have no justification in assuming the rates are” low enough to rule out a large solar influence in climate. “It’s all just speculation” that there is no solar cause. In the meantime, we still have no proof that an increase in atmospheric co2 does anything beyond enhanced plant growth.

DavidAppell
April 29, 2016 at 5:20 PM

“Climate scientists “have no justification in assuming the rates are” low enough to rule out a large solar influence in climate”

Absolutely, totally, utterly false.

The sun simply hasn’t added enough heat to account for modern warming — no even close.

And no one has ever shown it has — except maybe Willie Soon, who was paid to come to certain conclusions.

“The sun simply hasn’t added enough heat …” Not from the grand-sum total, TSI, compared to various calculations of “Global Warming” that are around 1W/m^2 or less (mostly, less). The TSI, as best we know of it, isn’t enough.

BUT, the TSI varies in strange ways, which is shown by the spectral solar irradiance, SSI. The TSI shows little variance, while the SSI shows large amounts of variance, but, some of the variance, in certain spectra, show an increase, while other spectra show a simultaneous decrease, leaving TSI showing no deviation, but … unless you assume that the Xray spectra affect the earth’s climate in exactly the same way as Ultraviolet … which is highly doubtful … the SSI may show the key interaction. We just don’t know. All of ‘climate science’ does not know and has no proof that SSI is not the cause. (We’ve been over, and over that point, DA).

Kopp & Lean 2011: ”The most accurate value of total solar irradiance during the 2008 solar minimum period is 1360.8 ± 0.5 W/m^2 according to measurements from the Total Irradiance Monitor (TIM) on NASA’s Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) and a series of new radiometric laboratory tests.”

“I’m just saying that the scientists can’t find their butts, even if they use both hands, metaphorically speaking of the TSI and ¾W of “warming”.”

What about that science — specifically — is lacking?

I bet you can’t say.

VooDude
March 30, 2016 at 9:10 PM

The science is lacking absoulte accuracy All of “climate science” is lacking absolute accuracy. Most of “climate science” is taking instruments designed to predict weather (or hunt submarines in WW2) and bastardize the data, coming to conclusions that the accuracy doesn’t support.

DavidAppell
March 30, 2016 at 9:31 PM

“The science is lacking absoulte accuracy.”

ALL SCIENCE lacks absolute accuracy, dummy.

All of it. Yet you rely on it each and every day in a great many ways. Explain.

VooDude
March 31, 2016 at 9:19 AM

That is total BS. Electronics, computers, automotive manufacturing, bridge building, etc all have to deal with understanding tolerances and errors.

You can’t say that about the TSI, where instruments were calibrated, at best, to non-SI-traceable 0.3% (about 4W/m^2) and then say that ‘the sun does not vary by more than 0.25W/m^2’ …
The conclusions don’t match the uncertainties.

Lee 1995 tells us that all of “Global Warming” is the same size as “irradiance variability trends which may be caused by drifts or shifts in the spacecraft sensor responses. Comparisons among the fits and measured irradiances indicate that the Nimbus 7 radiometer response shifted by a total of 0.8 Wm−2 between September 1989 and April 1990 and that the ERBS and UARS radiometers each drifted approximately 0.5 W/m^2 during the first 5 months in orbit.”

After all, Claus Fröhlich 2003 had the audacity to proclaim 0.0085%: “…The uncertainty of the composite TSI … the long-term uncertainty for the whole record from 1978 to present is estimated to ±85 ppm.”

Old was 1365.4, new is 1360.8, so the new value is smaller by 4.6 Watts (per metre squared). It isn’t smaller because the sun emitted less; the earlier readings were confused by “Scattered light” entering the instrument.

Lee 1993 said the value was 1365.4, but Lee 1993 said it was ±0.7 but now, Kopp & lean 2011 says it is plus or minus 1.3 …

Wait – the 1990’s value is 1365.4 plus or minus … well, just minus 1.3, which is 1364.1, but the 2011 value is 1360.8 plus or minus … wait, just plus, 0.5 (1361.3)

So, if the error estimates that they gave us were realistic, then the old 1990’s value should fall inside the ± range of the new 2011, value, or, the reverse … but 1364.1 (the lowest 1990 value) doesn’t reach to 1361.3, the highest range of the new 2011 value… nor does the range of the new value, including the plus or minus range, encompass the old value. So these folks really don’t know what the total solar irradiance value is, except that it is in the range of 1360.8, apparently plus or minus (old-new, 1365.4-1360.8 = 4.6 Watts {per metre squared} )

The ”lower solar irradiance value is not a change in the Sun’s output, whose variations it detects with stability comparable or superior to prior measurements; instead, its significance is in advancing the capability of monitoring solar irradiance variations …”

”Uncorrected instrumental drifts are the likely reason that none of the irradiance composites show consistency in their trends …”

”Climate change studies that use published TSI time series to accredit solar responses must be cognizant of the possible errors in the record; otherwise climate variability is incorrectly attributed to solar variations that are in fact instrumental drifts. The current database is too short and imprecise to establish the magnitude of long‐term irradiance changes, or to alleviate conflicting claims of irradiance variations driving significant climate change in recent decades.”

The TSI, as noted earlier, has a remarkably steady deliverance of wattage, over time. However, the SSI shows that the spectral components of this apparently steady TSI, vary in quite a large way. The wattage seems to be constant, but the ultraviolet goes up as the soft X-ray goes down, so the TSI appears to be uniform, while the interaction between earth’s climate and the large increases or decreases, of the X-ray and ultraviolet, well, we just don’t know, do we? That’s the thing, with this “settled science” … It changes, all the time.

”The relative solar variability, at these shorter wavelengths, is much greater than in the visible, and the sensitivity of the Earth’s atmosphere to variations in this spectral region, is large.”

Kopp, Greg 2014. “An assessment of the solar irradiance record for climate studies.”Journal of Space Weather and Space Climate

”… While TSI is a good indicator of the total solar forcing on the climate, it cannot be used to understand the physical interaction between the solar radiation and the atmosphere, since spectral solar irradiance (SSI) variability, and the altitude in the atmosphere, at which it is absorbed, is highly wavelength-dependent (Meier 1991; Lean et al. 1997; Krivova et al. 2006). There is a growing body of evidence to suggest that TSI, and as a consequence SSI, may vary on secular timescales exceeding the 11-year solar cycle.”

”While considerable progress has been made in determining the absolute value of the total solar irradiance (Kopp and Lean 2011), the absolute spectral solar irradiance is still poorly constrained …”

“3. Uncertainty estimation
As discussed above, the definition of uncertainties and the inclusion of different uncertainty sources differ for each instrument. Hence, it is not surprising that the final uncertainty estimates vary considerably between instruments. A particularly pronounced example are the measurements of total solar irradiance, as shown in Figure 2, where uncertainties vary over three orders of magnitude and the highest uncertainties are given for the first fully-calibrated instrument, TIM, due to the inclusion of accuracy in its uncertainty estimates. In conclusion, any meaningful inter-instrument comparison of uncertainties must take into account their sources and definitions.”

Listen to yourself — arguing that global warming is due to the sun at the same time arguing that the TSI data is to uncertain to conclude anything.

Robert
April 5, 2016 at 3:04 PM

I think there were a couple of cats with similar attributes. L. Carroll’s, and that guy whose long name starts with S…..

DavidAppell
April 5, 2016 at 2:55 PM

From the abstract of the paper you linked to:

“Results. We present a unified database of solar activity records with accompanying meta-data and uncertainties.
Conclusions. This dataset can be used for further investigations of the long-term trend of solar activity and the construction of a homogeneous SSI record.”

DavidAppell
April 5, 2016 at 4:36 PM

You conveniently (and sneakily) left out the caption to Scholl et al Figure 2:

“Instrument uncertainties for different TSI instruments. They differ by up to three orders of magnitude with the highest uncertainties for a modern instrument, TIM. This is due to different definitions used for what an instrumental uncertainty is. For that reason, these values cannot be meaningfully compared.”

So, what are the definitions of the uncertainty, for that table, you keep pointing to?

DavidAppell
April 4, 2016 at 8:17 PM

Why is Lee 1995 relevant today, when its analysis stops in 1993 and the data it used came from a satellite that no longer flies?

VooDude
April 5, 2016 at 10:41 AM

A key “conclusion” in “Global Warming” is that the sun did not do it because the Total Solar Irradience (TSI) variance is really small. Only recently, however, did scientists notice that the variations in the energy from the sun are actually LARGE, but complimentary to the total. The variations in one part of the spectrum tend to cancel the other variations in another part of the spectrum, leaving the total … the TSI, somewhat invariant, but the SSI (Spectral Solar Irradience) is LARGE.

”TSI variations are observed to be on the order of about 0.5% standard deviation from the mean value.” … ”TSI alone, does not adequately describe the solar forcing on the atmosphere, and therefore, SSI variations have to be taken into account, in climate models.” … ”…although the UV radiation shortward of 400 nm represents less than 8% of the TSI, its variability may have a significant impact on climate.” … ”The TSI is the spectral integral of SSI over all wavelengths, but its weak[low] variability masks the fact that relative SSI variations show a strong[high] wavelength dependence (Fig. 1). In particular, the visible and NIR bands are the least variable of the solar spectrum, with a relative solar cycle amplitude of the same order as for the TSI (0.1 %), whereas values of 1 to 100% are observed in the UV variations, and in excess of 100% in the soft X-ray range (below 10 nm). Each individual spectral band has a markedly different impact on the terrestrial atmosphere, which depends on the atmospheric processes affected by the given band, the amount of the spectral flux, and its variation.” … Ermolli et al. 2013

The interaction between different spectra from the sun, and the climate of the earth, is also LARGE. ”Long-term variations, such as the solar magnetic cycle modulation, have a more marked impact on the shorter wavelengths, especially in the XUV and EUV ranges where the intrinsic variability can reach 100%–1000% as shown in Figure 1.”

”The solar spectral variability in the UV is dynamic, and affects the thermosphere/ionosphere system differently on various time scales.”

”The solar UV flux with the magnetospheric energetic inputs induces a large panel of processes such as ionization, dissociation, or excitation of the gases in the upper atmosphere. These processes induce electron production and photo-excitation that can be measured remotely, and give rise to a large panel of observable quantities.”

”The solar UV flux with the magnetospheric energetic inputs induces a large panel of processes such as ionization, dissociation, or excitation of the gases in the upper atmosphere. These processes induce electron production and photo-excitation that can be measured remotely, and give rise to a large panel of observable quantities.”

Lee made statements about the data that he observed (which apparently covered the period from 1960 through some of the 1990s data). What Lee said was applicable to that period of data…

DavidAppell
April 5, 2016 at 2:47 PM

UAH relies on a string of about 7 different satellites, extrapolating across their entire records.

Satellites don’t last forever, so such extrapolations unavoidable.

DavidAppell
April 5, 2016 at 2:48 PM

“What Lee said was applicable to that period of data…”

And not at all applicable to today’s, or to the analysis done by LASP (they give their error bars directly on their data page).

VooDude
April 5, 2016 at 10:25 AM

Just last year, Coddington published: ”101 The extant database of space era observations of TSI and SSI (for TSI, 37 years or 102 approximately 3 solar cycles and less for SSI) lacks the length and, with respect to SSI, the stability to quantify true solar variability over multiple 11-year solar activity cycles. Most of the individual observations made thus far have neither sufficiently small uncertainties nor adequate repeatability to achieve the measurement requirements for a climate data record of total and spectral solar irradiance.”

”…108 the challenge is to detect variations of less than 0.01% per decade in TSI and 0.1-0.5% per decade for SSI…”

With the climate’s sensitivity to solar changes so low, about 0.1 K/(W/m2), it would take a huge, easily noticeable change in TSI to account for modern warming.

Such a large change isn’t there, period.

VooDude
April 5, 2016 at 6:14 PM

Diversion into temperatures; this discussion is about absolute accuracy & climate-quality measurements … which, for the TSI, do not exist … When CLARREO hits, the necessary accuracy might be there … but, it takes decades to accumulate the data.

VooDude
April 5, 2016 at 6:18 PM

“…huge, noticeable change in TSI to account for modern warming…”
Modern warming is a paltry, tiny ¾ W/m^2.

”Climate change, however, consists of very small changes in distributions of geophysical variables … Typical decadal changes are much less than 1% and clearly are small perturbations.”

What part of NASA’s 2013 paper by Wielicki, saying, ”A critical issue for climate change observations is that their absolute accuracy is insufficient… don’t you understand?

There’s a HISTORY to this “Global Warming” crap. It’s not as if this was all COOKed up in 2008. You made reference to 1960! Prior to 2008, the best calibration was 0.3% – the PICARD instrument was calibrated in the new facility, But was not aloft long enough for “Climate-quality” readings. (Read the papers I cited, they tell you all about it).
The most modern TSI equipment is not of “Climate-quality” absolute accuracy, as written up by NASA’s CLARREO team:

”Absolute calibration accuracy has a dramatic effect on climate trends (Fig. 3a). The CLARREO requirement is 0.06 K (k = 2) or equivalently 0.1 K (k = 3).… But degrading the CLARREO accuracy by a factor of 2 to a value of 0.12 K (k = 2) would degrade trend accuracy by more than 20%, and would increase from 22 to 26 years the time to detect a trend of 0.1 K at 95% confidence. Figure 3a shows that every degradation of calibration absolute accuracy by an additional 0.06 K delays the time to detect such a trend by 5 more years.”

You climate deniers are such liars — we have to check every little thing you say, and they always turn out to be lies.

THIS PAPER IS OLD! Didn’t you notice?

SOLAR IRRADIANCE IS NO LONGER MEASURED VIA ERBS.

THE PAPER ONLY LOOKS AT DATA UP UNTIL 1993.

Really, this is just despicable dishonesty.

VooDude
April 5, 2016 at 9:39 AM

I don’t understand how exact quotes with bibliographic citations can be “lies”…

VooDude
April 5, 2016 at 10:16 AM

What part of Lee’s statement:

“The current database is too short and imprecise to establish the magnitude of long‐term irradiance changes, …” is inapplicable to your claim of TSI declining since 1960? True, Lee’s paper was in 1993. Did someone go back in time, to correct the data from 1960?

In 2012, Kopp said the data is only approching the necessary accuracy … : ”Continuity of the 33-year long total solar irradiance [TSI] record has been facilitated by corrections for offsets due to calibration differences between instruments, providing a solar data record with precision approaching that needed for Earth climate studies.”

In 2014, Pia Zacharias had this to say: ”Modern instruments require an absolute accuracy of one-tenth of the solar cycle variability, and repeatability (relative precision per year) of at least one-tenth of the accuracy…”

”…absolute accuracy has recently been shown to be important for estimates of Earth’s energy balance (Wild et al. 2013). ”

”In the 1990s, it was generally considered that measurements were converging to an absolute TSI value of 1366 ± 1 W/m^2 … However, after data from TIM/SORCE (launched in 2003) had become available, a new absolute TSI value was published that was approximately 5 W/m^2 lower compared to previous measurements … Lately, … have favored a TSI value of (1360.8 ± 0.5) W/m^2 as being the best representative value of solar minimum.”

”Dewitte et al. (2004) identified a difference of +0.15 ± 0.35 W/m^2 between the 1986 and the 1996 activity minima. However, due to the large uncertainty of the values, this result is not statistically significant.”

”…(Fröhlich 2009). The given TSI values are (1,365.45±0.10) W/m^2 (for the 1996 minimum) and (1365.26±0.16) W/m^2 (for the 2008 minimum), respectively. However, in the 2013 review paper, no data uncertainties are included (Fröhlich 2013), neither for the activity proxies that are used, nor for the reported solar cycle amplitude variations. This omission limits the assessment of the significance of the results presented.”

”Offsets due to calibration differences between the instruments generally exceed the stated instrument uncertainties, and long-lasting controversial debates among the representatives of the respective TSI composites (PMOD, ACRIM, IRMB) on the cross-calibration and cross-validation of the independent observations have prevented the TSI community from coming up with a conclusive TSI composite since the first TSI composite became available in the late 1990s.”

”The main problems that have been identified include the assumption and correction of effects that have not been verified by the instrument teams, reference to work that has never been published, inappropriate use of models (and instrument data) to support results and the omission of measurement uncertainties preventing an evaluation of the validity of the results presented.”

What Lee said about the database being too short and imprecise was echoed by Coddington, just last year: ”The extant database of space era observations of TSI and SSI (for TSI, 37 years or 102 approximately 3 solar cycles and less for SSI) lacks the length and, with respect to SSI, the stability to quantify true solar variability over multiple 11-year solar activity cycles. Most of the individual observations made thus far have neither sufficiently small uncertainties nor adequate repeatability to achieve the measurement requirements for a climate data record of total and spectral solar irradiance.”

“Comparisons among the fits and measured irradiances indicate that the Nimbus 7 radiometer response shifted by a total of 0.8 Wm−2 between September 1989 and April 1990 and that the ERBS and UARS radiometers each drifted approximately 0.5 W/m^2 during the first 5 months in orbit.””

ALL satellites drift. Drift is accounted for. UAH — John Christie and Roy Spencer — make a living off of correcting satellite drifts, in order to compute their monthly atmospheric temperatures that deniers used to like to quote re: no warming for 18 years and such crap.

Used to.

VooDude
April 5, 2016 at 9:39 AM

Orbital drift is different than instrumental drift. With Spencer and Christie, their satellites were taking readings at slightly different times of day, so the diurnal temperature rise and fall was being sampled at different times. The brightness temperature does not drift as a result of orbit.

DavidAppell
April 5, 2016 at 3:21 PM

Yes, there is more than one kind of drift. Orbital drift contributes about 1 K/decade overall, when they are trying to dig out a signal of about 1/10th of that. Which they claim to do.

The sun is perhaps, according to some studies, a ‘variable star’ and yes, as you point out, maybe it’s a GOOD THING that CO2 is going up. We may be very glad for that if current solar science is correct!

DavidAppell
December 28, 2015 at 6:08 PM

Changes in solar irradiance have very little effect on climate, especially compared to GHGs. It’s the latter that will dominate climate change in this century, even if there is another Maunder Minimum:

I’m sorry to bombard you with replies, but your comment was full of pure gibberish. THings that made no sense at all.

The astounding thing is you don’t even know this, but are completely sure the canonical science is wrong.

How does that happen? I’m truly interested in this? Your science background is obviously weak, as I’m sure you know. So how are you so confident you are right and all the scientists in the world are wrong, about so many basic things?

Brin Jenkins
May 13, 2015 at 3:56 AM

Too many replies for me, perhaps you get paid to do this and I don’t,

If I don’t understand I ask for an explanation of the mechanisms involved, and you, or anyone else has not supplied it. Oh yes of course, and clouds are all cotton wool.

DavidAppell
May 13, 2015 at 4:08 AM

I gave you the simple mechanism — CO2 absorbs some of the radiation given off by the Earth, and re-emits some of that back downward.

Unfortunately for your argument, the most that has been claimed by any even remotely valid source is 10%. And the methodology used to reach that conclusion is suspect.

However, yeah, I’ll take all the global warming we can get! The Earth is nowhere near “optimum temperature”. If CO2 really is the thermostat (clearly it is not, but we’ll stipulate it is for just this response) then I say TURN IT UP!

DavidAppell
December 28, 2015 at 5:55 PM

CO2 quickly absorbs all the IR given off by the Earth.

This is then re-radiated in all directions. Then absorbed again, re-radiated again, etc. Above about 3 km, there is net radiation escaping to space. Below it, it warms the planet.

Mary Brown
May 14, 2015 at 10:05 AM

Well, he is a full time climate alarmist hack. But he is kicking your butt in this argument.

Believer
May 15, 2015 at 2:35 PM

All of the scientists in the world are not in agreement. Why should we believe your theory’s if there is doubt among the people who are supposed know what is fact do not agree?

Debauche
May 15, 2015 at 3:11 PM

Excuse me???? “‘ALL’? the scientists in the world”????? “All” your scientists have been wrong with 97.4% of their predictions over the past 25 years. Yet you blindly follow where they lead you.

Robert
May 18, 2015 at 1:55 PM

Seems there must be a special set of fizziques books that only the contrarians have access to….
Kinda wonder if they used their special books in a class, what their grade in general would wind up being. Seems what they are claiming here would require some changes other places also…..

DavidAppell
May 18, 2015 at 11:44 PM

Climate change is based on standard physics, established a hundred years ago or more. That physics is a basic part of any university physics degree.

Robert
May 19, 2015 at 3:04 PM

I was thinking along the lines of how a person using an xtian or ID biology book would fare in a biology class (be it MS, HS, 4 year) .

BigWaveDave
February 4, 2016 at 1:16 AM

You were cheated.

DavidAppell
February 4, 2016 at 1:41 AM

Sorry, nope — nor have you shown any qualifications or expertise to be taken seriously on this topic. This is what physics finds, whether you like or not.

BigWaveDave
February 6, 2016 at 1:13 AM

No it is not what physics finds, it is what fools who have been called or call themselves physicists repeat. The clue to this lies in the fact that not one of them has been able to describe the “greenhouse effect” in quantifiable and testable terms.

DavidAppell
February 8, 2016 at 5:59 PM

BigWaveDave wrote:
“….not one of them has been able to describe the “greenhouse effect” in quantifiable and testable terms.”

Re #2: You are making a classic mistake: assuming that because something’s concentration is small it has no effect.

Would you drink a 400 ppm solution of cyanide and water?

BigWaveDave
March 29, 2016 at 9:01 PM

You didn’t answer either question. I presume that is because you know of no physical reason that CO2 should be affecting temperature. Instead you ask me if I want to drink some poison.

What could my not wanting to drink poison have anything to do with effects of a non toxic compound essential for all life on Earth?

DavidAppell
March 29, 2016 at 9:21 PM

Of course I know why CO2 affects the Earth’s temperature.

Now, why don’t you know?
Why did you never seek out an answer to this (good) question, which has been in the air for over 25 years?

BigWaveDave
March 29, 2016 at 11:22 PM

Any change in CO2 concentration will cause a very slight change in the overall mass and specific heat of the atmosphere. Other than the very very slight influences these two changes have, there is no physical reason for any CO2 affect on Earth’s temperature. If there were, someone could state it .

But since you can’t state and no one has stated why and how in real physical, testable terms, you should at least wonder why.

DavidAppell
March 29, 2016 at 11:32 PM

“Any change in CO2 concentration will cause a very slight change in the overall mass and specific heat of the atmosphere.”

Is that all? What will that change do to the atmosphere’s ability to absorb infrared radiation?

BigWaveDave
March 29, 2016 at 11:52 PM

Not very much at all. Can you answer the questions, please?

DavidAppell
March 30, 2016 at 12:04 AM

“Not very much” isn’t an answer.

Numbers would be an answer. If the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere doubled, how much would its heat-trapping ability change?

BigWaveDave
March 30, 2016 at 12:30 AM

The surface temperature would not change enough to measure with any ordinary thermometer.

What heat trapping ability are you talking about? Please explain what this is, and how this can be shown to work in the atmosphere.

DavidAppell
March 30, 2016 at 12:35 AM

“The surface temperature would not change enough to measure with any ordinary thermometer.”

What is the basis or calculation for this claim?

DavidAppell
March 30, 2016 at 12:36 AM

“What heat trapping ability are you talking about? Please explain what this is, and how this can be shown to work in the atmosphere.”

This was discovered around 1859, and it forms the entire basis for manmade global warming….

DavidAppell
March 29, 2016 at 11:33 PM

“If there were, someone could state it .”

As far as stating it goes, have you ever read a textbook on climate science.?
Ever heard of the Schwarzschild equations?

DavidAppell
March 30, 2016 at 12:06 AM

“What could my not wanting to drink poison have anything to do with effects of a non toxic compound essential for all life on Earth?”

Because one shows that your ideas are inconsistent and faulty.

You assume that a small amount of a substance can have no effect. But the example of 400 ppm of cyanide shows this assumption to be wrong.

So perhaps you’re wrong in the same way about atmospheric CO2….

BigWaveDave
March 30, 2016 at 9:14 AM

I am asking you to explain how 0.01% CO2 by volume is supposed have effect on atmospheric temperature with justification of the magnitude you claim.

I’m not asking you to kill everyone with your poison. We can live without that, but we can’t live without CO2.

DavidAppell
March 30, 2016 at 7:53 PM

Of course I can show this — because I know the science.

Do you know how to determine how much warming results from an atmospheric concentration of X% CO2?

BigWaveDave
March 30, 2016 at 9:10 PM

I’m familiar with the simplistic ‘X deg temp increase for a doubling of CO2 concentration from 280 ppm”, but I don’t believe that you can show a valid physical explanation for that belief or any other way that CO2 concentration drives temperature.

But, if you think you can, have at it. You will be a star for sure, since your explanation will be the first.

DavidAppell
March 30, 2016 at 9:33 PM

“…but I don’t believe that you can show a valid physical explanation for that belief…”

So, what happens after the CO2 in the atmosphere “absorbs” the infrared radiation? Does the CO2 get hot? How hot? Does the heat get shared with other molecules in the air? How much heating can that hot CO2 actually do at the surface or in the rest of the air?

Please walk us through the physical mechanism of how and by how much a CO2 concentration 0.03% should warm the surface; and by the same how, by how much you expect a CO2 concentration 0.04% to warm the surface. The main thing that you keep missing is the “how?”.

DavidAppell
March 31, 2016 at 1:54 AM

“So, what happens after the CO2 in the atmosphere “absorbs” the infrared radiation?”

Again, your ignorance is showing. You need to learn some science. Badly.

After CO2 absorbs upwelling IR, it reemits it, some of which goes downward.

That *IS* global warming.

See how simple it is?

DavidAppell
March 31, 2016 at 1:55 AM

“Please walk us through the physical mechanism of how and by how much a CO2 concentration 0.03% should warm the surface; and by the same how, by how much you expect a CO2 concentration 0.04% to warm the surface. ”

I’m somewhat familiar with Pierrehumbert’s fiction. He has let the cheerleading of climate activists cloud reality. In my opinion, he offers only a rather myopic and very limited view of atmospheric temperature regulation, and many of his premises are inapplicable or simply wrong.

But, with respect for your next question, if you think I have failed to see an applicable physical mechanism in Pierrehumbert’s work, please show me what I missed, and how you can use it to explain in quantifiable physical terms how “ghg” warming works and how much there should be.

DavidAppell
April 4, 2016 at 6:17 PM

“In my opinion, he offers only a rather myopic….”

Who cares? Your opinion about a noted expert like Pierrehumbert is irrelevant and doesn’t matter in the least.

DavidAppell
April 4, 2016 at 6:17 PM

“if you think I have failed to see an applicable physical mechanism in Pierrehumbert’s work, please show me what I missed, and how you can use it to explain in quantifiable physical terms how “ghg” warming works and how much there should be.”

Q: Do you know what the two-stream equations are?

BigWaveDave
April 13, 2016 at 1:35 PM

Yes, inapplicable.

DavidAppell
April 13, 2016 at 10:48 PM

Why aren’t the two-stream equations applicable?

DavidAppell
March 31, 2016 at 1:57 AM

“The main thing that you keep missing is the “how?”.”

I’ve told you many times by now.

Atmospheric CO2 absorbs IR given off by the surface. It them reemits it, in a random direction. Some of this reemitted IR goes downward. That *IS* global warming.

Got it finally?

DavidAppell
March 31, 2016 at 2:07 AM

BigWaveDave: Honest question — have you made _ny_ attempt whatsoever to understand the basis of manmade global warming? That is, why so many scientists are convinced it is happening?

DavidAppell
March 30, 2016 at 11:31 PM

“I’m familiar with the simplistic ‘X deg temp increase for a doubling of CO2 concentration from 280 ppm”, but I don’t believe that you can show a valid physical explanation for that belief or any other way that CO2 concentration drives temperature.”

How exactly do you think climate sensitivity is calculated??

DavidAppell
March 30, 2016 at 11:32 PM

“…that you can show a valid physical explanation for that belief or any other way that CO2 concentration drives temperature.”

Do you really deny that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation??

DavidAppell
March 30, 2016 at 7:54 PM

“We can live without that, but we can’t live without CO2.”

Nobody — NOBODY — suggests removing all CO2 from the atmosphere.

What was the problem when the atmosphere had only 280 ppmv CO2?

BigWaveDave
March 30, 2016 at 8:20 PM

“What was the problem when the atmosphere had only 280 ppmv CO2?”

The relative difficulty growing crops likely contributed to the “Dust Bowl” in the ’30s.

It’s even worse than you think Frank: the earth is not 3,000 years old, humans evolved from more primitive primates, smoking cigarettes increases your risk of cancer – and many more unwelcome messages delivered to your doorstep courtesy of the hateful scourge that is science.

Voodude
May 18, 2015 at 12:34 PM

Water vapour absorbs those same frequencies (wavelengths) of infrared radiation. Like a pirate’s eye-patch. If you put sunglasses on, over your eye-patch, are the sunglasses going to reduce the light that reaches your retina?

DavidAppell
May 18, 2015 at 2:31 PM

Yes, water vapor is a big contributor to the baseline greenhouse effect. But for AGW, water vapor concentration doesn’t change until the temperature changes — it’s a feedback.

Voodude
May 18, 2015 at 6:45 PM

”Water vapor is the greenhouse gas occurring in the atmosphere in concentrations about 2%, and is the most abundant greenhouse gas. … Water vapor is so plentiful in the atmosphere already that additional emissions are unlikely to absorb any significant amount of infrared radiation. It is also likely that the amount of water vapor held in the atmosphere is generally in equilibium, and that increasing emissions would not increase atmospheric concentrations.”

“According to currently available information, anthropogenic water vapor emissions at the Earth’s surface are unlikely to be an important element in climate change.”

DOE/EIA-0573: ”Water vapour is by far the most common, with an atmospheric concentration of nearly 1 percent, compared with less than 0.04 percent for carbon dioxide. The effect of human activity on global water vapor concentrations is considered negligible … ,”

”Water vapor, as noted above, is the most common greenhouse gas present in the atmosphere. … Water vapor is so plentiful in the atmosphere that additional emissions are unlikely to absorb any significant amount of infrared radiation. It is also likely that the amount of water vapor held in the atmosphere is generally in equilibrium, and that increasing emissions of water vapor would not increase atmospheric concentrations (4). According to currently available information, anthropogenic water vapor emissions at the Earth’s surface are unlikely to be an important element in either causing or ameliorating climate change.”

”Each [greenhouse] gas absorbs radiation in a particular set of wavelengths, or “window,” in the spectrum. In some cases, where concentrations of the gas are low, and no other gases block radiation in the same window, small emissions of the gas will have a disproportionate absorptive effect. However, if concentrations of the [that] gas rise over time, a larger and larger portion of the total light passing through the “window” will already have been captured, and the marginal effects of additional emissions will not be as large. Therefore, the effect of an additional unit of emission of a gas

that is relatively plentiful in the atmosphere, such as water vapor or carbon dioxide, tends to be less than that of a rare gas, such as sulfur hexafluoride. This “diminishing return” effect implies that increasing the concentration of a particular gas reduces the impact of additional quantities of that gas. Thus, the relative impacts of various gases will change as their relative concentrations in the atmosphere change.”

DOE/EIA-0573 (99) Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 1999 (published October 2000)

While anyone can cut-n-paste, my points are emboldened using the author’s own words. For example, we were discussing water vapour as a “feedback” which would be “amplified” – a key point in the warmist arsenal… Yet, “Water vapor is so plentiful in the atmosphere that additional emissions are unlikely to absorb any significant amount of infrared radiation“

You misunderstand the science. First of all, we can’t “emit” water vapor — it’s level is determined by nature. And that level depends on the temperature of the air. So if the air temperature is increasing, the atmosphere can hold exponentially more water vapor, a strong positive feedback on global warming.

Voodude
May 20, 2015 at 3:53 PM

To avoid a redundant post, this URL links to a comment elsewhere in this post:

The point he is demolishing your claims and you’re busy pissing into a strong wind in response.

DavidAppell
December 28, 2015 at 5:53 PM

I don’t see any demolishing of my claims. I see a bunch of stuff thrown blindly thrown against the wall, which you think amounts to an argument. It does not.

Voodude
May 19, 2015 at 4:37 AM

The relationship between surface temperature, total column water vapour (and the resultant infrared effects), and precipitation, is not very clear… Increased temperature drives more water vapour, but that relationship dies a quick death, very close to the surface of the earth, as other effects dominate – like cloud-microphysics, and precipitation microphysics. These are the biggest flaws in General Circulation Models; they can’t deal with the fine spatial resolution (less than 1°) necessary to model cloud-microphysics, and precipitation microphysics, because of the geometric increase in computing power (or, elapsed time) necessary, so this is fudge-factored-in (parameter-ized) … and doesn’t match reality. A factor of two – doubled, or halved would be an excellent mismatch rate for today’s models… In general, they are worse than that. They cannot simulate the correct sign, let alone agree on the magnitude, comparing simulation to observation. In general terms, the claimed mismatch of radiative effects of about 2.5 watts per square meter, is the “Global Warming” factor. Hansen said it was 0.58W per square meter …

“… a 5% increase of [Stratocumulus clouds’] coverage would be sufficient to offset the global warming induced by doubling CO2”

“…but not a single model has a statistically significant agreement with the observational datasets on yearly averaged values of [Cloud Fraction] and on the amplitude of the seasonal cycle, over all analysed areas.”

Of course climate models have uncertaities — all calculations in science do. Unless you can offer a supercomputer with much more processing power…. It takes a factor of 16 increase in processing power to halve the grid sizes and time steps. And some of that would go to incorporating more detailed physics.

Voodude
May 20, 2015 at 3:38 PM

Researchers, comparing models to the real world, document many parameters that are off by a factor of two … double, or half … or some, by an order of magnitude…
Researchers have documented large errors in the models, which are of opposite sign (thus, they cancel each other) … yet, predictions made from these models, like Hansen’s 0.58 watts per square meter of “imbalance” is the supposed factor that warms the planet. Of all the energy that slams into the planet, Hansen says, 240 watts per square meter are absorbed, and his 0.58 out of 240 is about ¼ of one percent – a tiny fraction. That is assuming the previous calculations are correct – Over a thousand watts per square meter, at the top of the atmosphere, peak, slam into the planet… about 340, averaged out. Hansen’s 0.58 out of that portion, is an even smaller percentage.

DavidAppell
May 20, 2015 at 5:01 PM

In fact, the models do a very good job of reproducing the warming-to-date — an error of less than 10%:

How do you know the “uncertanties” are so minute as to not change your perceived belief that climate change is due to AGW?

DavidAppell
May 20, 2015 at 10:16 PM

An enormous amount of evidence exists that shows climate change is due to humans. Go look it up. This question simply is not in doubt by any scientist.

DavidAppell
May 20, 2015 at 3:14 PM

Your last link is 404.

Voodude
May 20, 2015 at 3:28 PM

Fixed.

DavidAppell
May 20, 2015 at 3:39 PM

Now it fails to download, but looking at the picture you posted…. yes, climate models don’t exactly replicate the precise thermal structure of the atmosphere….. That’s why modelers express their results with confidence limits. For CO2’s climate sensitivity it’s 1.5 – 4.5 C. There’s just as much chance of the 4.5 C happening as of the 1.5 C happening. So it’s a question of addressing risk — do you feel lucky?

Voodude
May 20, 2015 at 4:34 PM

You must know about how to use Google Scholar, right? Put the name of the paper into the search field… pick any of the many PDFs that appear.

DavidAppell
May 20, 2015 at 5:00 PM

Quote what you think is relevant — I”m not going on a wild goose chase.

DavidAppell
May 20, 2015 at 3:40 PM

BTW, how well does your model do? Or any contrarian model?

Voodude
May 20, 2015 at 4:28 PM

Dr. George Edward Pelham Box: “essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful”

I don’t present models to back up my point. I seldom have a “point” of my own. I quote scientists (mostly) with citations and URLs. The time-series graphs are not my own, but cut-n-paste from the cited web site (even my cartoons are cited and have a URL). For web sites that don’t compute a linear regression, I sometimes do, and usually paste the results, and draw, graphically, on the chart… I generally don’ t opine or predict, I cite and quote others.

DavidAppell
May 20, 2015 at 5:18 PM

What are you trying to convey by quoting others — that climate models don’t get everything right? There isn’t a modeler in the world who would disagree with that.

Where are those contrarian models (or your model) that get everything exactly right?

And how do you explain the 0.9 C warming to-date?

Voodude
May 20, 2015 at 5:36 PM

I don’t present models. I present critiques of models by others. 0.9°C? Compared to the detrended standard deviation (from ice cores) in the last 8ka of the Holocene, that is less than one standard deviation, and then again, ”about a quarter of the claimed global warming since 1900 is actually an artifact of adjustments.”

Actually, the simpliest climate model doesn’t need detailed physics of clouds — it simply says that total warming will be proportional to total CO2 emissions. The constant of proportionality is 1.5 C per trillion tons of carbon, with a 95% confidence interval of 1.0 – 2.1 C/Tt carbon.

That’s the path we’re on, and what models predict we’ve been on and will remain on:

Yes, it is a feedback, and clearly a strong negative one. Completely overwhelming any positive effect of CO2, obviously!

DavidAppell
December 28, 2015 at 5:54 PM

Wow are you confused. The water vapor feedback IS DUE to the warming created by CO2. It’s a strong positive feedback that would not occur without CO2 first causing warming.

waxliberty
May 21, 2015 at 6:13 PM

This is getting to be a greatest hits of common CO2 internet myths. There is not overlap at all frequencies nor is there the same amount of mixing up into the highest levels of the atmosphere.

Voodude
May 22, 2015 at 11:05 AM

waxliberty, it is true that water vapour does not eclipse all the wavelengths of CO2. Here is one band 4μm-5μm; in this instance, the earth does not radiate outgoing long wave radiation of appreciable power.

Voodude
May 22, 2015 at 11:06 AM

Some bands of CO2 wavelength have different magnitudes of absorption… Where a chance exists for CO2 to beat water vapour, well, it would appear that those bands are already pretty saturated…

Voodude
May 22, 2015 at 11:17 AM

CO2 in the 10μm-20μm band, where water vapour is changing from high saturation to low saturation…

You are not raising any remotely new points relative to known physics here, or offering some sort of counterpoint to David’s basic description of how the enhanced greenhouse effect operates (driven not just by human CO2 emissions but a number of GHGs), as you seem to be pretending to be.

Voodude
May 22, 2015 at 12:58 PM

I’ve never seen such information presented as a blog comment, anywhere in Disqus. True, the journal-published scientific papers that so much stuff actually comes from, are the real pioneers – I just echo what they say. Tonnes of it.
The diagram that I made comments on has a URL showing where I got it from … I don’t create my own charts like that, and I give credit with the URL.

Not the best graph I’ve seen… their math doesn’t add up and it’s from WIKIPEDIA which is for wikipdiots.

That said, you are making more sense than DA and the other climate alarmists here, so other than maybe trying to get a better graph from a better source, keep it up!

Voodude
May 19, 2015 at 4:49 AM

Correcting Brin: “Brin: The Earth emits infrared radiation. CO2 the ensemble of greenhouse gases, the majority of which is water vapour, absorbs it. The CO2 greenhouse gases then re-emits that radiation, and some of it goes downward. That warms the surface.

It’s this mechanism that keeps the Earth’s surface about 30 °C warmer than the sun can make it.”

DavidAppell
May 20, 2015 at 3:11 PM

Obviously there are more GHGs than CO2 — I was explaining how CO2 causes warming. And again you don’t understand how water vapor concentration changes in the atmosphere — it changes when the temperature of the atmosphere changes. Warmer air can hold more water vapor. That’s a positive feedback of AGW.

Voodude
May 20, 2015 at 3:40 PM

This is an area of contention, but precipitation fights against evaporation, and thus, a thin layer against the oceans (or an isolated chamber in experiments), it seems that warmer air holds more water … but in the real world, it isn’t that simple.

DavidAppell
May 20, 2015 at 4:56 PM

The Clausius-Claperyon relationship isn’t in “contention” — it’s a fundamental consequence of the laws of thermodynamics.

waxliberty
May 21, 2015 at 6:08 PM

In the real world, atmospheric water vapor content has increased generally consistent with Clausius-Clapyeron according to observations so far.

Water vapor contributes to the negative adiabatic lapse rate feedback effect, but this is quite small compared to the (positive) enhanced greenhouse water vapor feedback in terms of energy impact. The water vapor feedback is not incredibly contentious in reality, it is directly observed and relatively well quantified.

Voodude
May 19, 2015 at 5:19 AM

Clouds (sold water, i.e. ice crystals) also absorb the long-wave radiation emitted by the earth’s surface and emit energy into space at the temperature at the cloud tops (e.g., Ramanathan et al., 1989)

DavidAppell
May 20, 2015 at 3:09 PM

Yes, they can. They also emit energy to the surface. The science is showing that the cloud feedback is very likely positive:

” science is showing that the cloud feedback is very likely positive:”
Dessler 2010

more recent research indicates the opposite:
Calisto 2014”Cloud forcing, thus, is negative, for the shortwave component, where clouds generally have a cooling effect, and positive, for the long-wave component, where clouds generally have a warming effect.”

negative for the shortwave component…positive for the longwave component….. that doesn’t mean the overall cloud feedback is negative.

VooDude
March 30, 2016 at 8:15 AM

“…always negative, on average”.”Clouds, along with column water vapor, are the principal control of the surface radiation budget. Clouds simultaneously reduce the amount of shortwave (SW) radiation and increase the amount of longwave (LW) radiation reaching the surface.”

”The sites we consider here are the Southern Great Plains (SGP) site in Oklahoma; the North Slope of Alaska (NSA) site in Pt. Barrow, Alaska; and the Manus Island and Nauru sites in the Tropical Western Pacific (TWP). ”

”The [long-wave, infrared] cloud effect values are a bit more surprising. There is actually very little difference in the values, particularly between the tropical sites and the [Southern Great Plains]. The value in the [Alaska’s North Slope] is larger by only about 10 to 12 W/m^2. As a result, the net cloud effect is dominated by the [short-wave cloud] effect, and is always negative on average.”

Ackerman, Thomas P., and C. N. Long. 2005 “A surface based climatology of irradiance, cloud effect and cloud amount at the ARM sites.” Ninth Symposium on Integrated Observing and Assimilation Systems for the Atmosphere, Oceans, and Land Surface

It is the major open question, however the available evidence makes it quite clear the cloud feedback effect is not so powerfully negative that it would counteract global warming and render it not an issue. (It is, after all, clear from paleoclimate e.g. glacial periods that the net sensitivity in the system is positive, as per the 1.5-4.5 ECS range.) We can still hope it will moderate the impact some, but the point from a policy perspective is that the odds that it is very strongly negative and hence we are at risk of taking too much policy action against GHG emissions are very low.

Actually H2O is the most common, most powerful GHG, responsible for 90%+ of the greenhouse effect.

A recent paper claimed that only 10% of the downwelling radiation was due to CO2, though their methodology for determining that is suspect. Are you aware of any portion of the IR spectrum where CO2 acts that H2O and other GHGs don’t?

DavidAppell
December 28, 2015 at 6:16 PM

Wrong. Actually water vapor is only responsible for 50% of the greenhouse effect with CO2 responsible for 25% and clouds feedbacks for the rest.

But water vapor is nearly constant except as it changes by climate change — see

The warmer the Earth gets, the more the entire spectrum of radiation increases ACROSS THE SPECTRUM, including the parts that aren’t affected by CO2. The peak of the radiation also shifts as the planet warms. Not all the re-radiated heat that you speak of makes it to the ground, some of it is re-absorbed by CO2 on the way then re-radiated back up. CO2 only delays the inevitable. It’s annoying how many supposedly authoritative sites and persons say it “traps” heat when it does nothing of the sort.

What you & your ilk don’t seem to get is while you are often PART right you are MOSTLY wrong, and this FACT is borne out by the following:

… the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade) … is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade).

It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims. A large body of scientific evidence — amassed before and since the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change indicates that the surface warming slowdown, also sometimes referred to in the literature as the hiatus, was due to the combined effects of internal decadal variability and natural forcing.

How old are you? I had thought you were an adult, but your answers are those of a child… a poorly educated one at that.

What you are describing is not “global warming” – what you are describing is what has been misnamed the “greenhouse effect” but that is a misnomer because a greenhouse uses a physical barrier that does actually “trap” heat. Misnamed “greenhouse gasses” merely delay the inevitable loss of heat to space.

Now, well before humans even evolved, the Earth reached temperatures that were not only what we enjoy today, but actually significantly warmer. I know, I know, you & your ilk didn’t like that fact so you tried to erase it but there’s too much evidence to deny – funny how you people call US the “deniers” when it’s you who keep denying well established scientific FACTS that conclusively disprove what you insist on believing.

This occurred because of the real primary “greenhouse gas”, and I really don’t like using that term because it’s WRONG, INCORRECT, but in common use so I have little choice. The primary “greenhouse gas” is water vapor. Even your own theories that are full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism admit this – go back and read the iPCC’s explanation, which said (and I’m paraphrasing here, so don’t try to catch me out on some minor detail) that as CO2 levels rise, this would cause some heating, which would lead to more evaporation and the increased water vapor in the atmosphere would be the key to the warming that SHOULD ALREADY HAVE TAKEN PLACE!

If you bother to read the IPCC reports, to look at their predictions, REAL WORLD temperatures, even with the multiple fraudulent adjustments by people like KARL, JONES and HANSEN, still are falling behind the lowest predictions, the ones that the IPCC would only result from immediate, drastic reductions in human CO2 output. And human CO2 output has continued to INCREASE.

As for your claim that

“Actually essentially ALL of the IR radiated by the Earth is absorbed by the atmosphere.”

that’s pretty amusing. If you have ANY peer-reviewed, published science that makes that claim, please present it.

What you’ve described is not “global warming”, it’s the misnamed “greenhouse effect”.

And any quanta of IR that manages to get caught can either be re-radiated or it can become mechanical energy.

And if it is re-radiated it has an equal probability to be radiated in ANY DIRECTION, so only a tiny fraction of the heat that gets caught on the way up ever makes it back down to the surface, because EACH TIME it gets caught, going in EITHER DIRECTION, it can be re-radiated in ANY DIRECTION, up, down sideways at any angle…

Your thinking is flawed, apparently. You suggest that you believe all re-radiated IR goes downward. This is not the case. Best brush up and do so with a more open mind.

In any case, the primary GREENHOUSE GAS is water vapor, not CO2. If the atmosphere were a stadium of 10,000 atmospheric molecules, 4 of them would be CO2 and the rest other gasses. You’re suggesting 4 fans rooting for the away team control the crowd noise in a stadium of 10,000, overwhelming 9,996 fans of the home team, basically. Even if we add in the other greenhouse gasses, particularly water vapor (around 3%), or 300 more fans, you’re still claiming that somewhere around 300 fans somehow out-shout the other 9,700. Wrong. And silly.

I know that is a bunch of mumbo-jumbo you people love to repeat to make it sound like you’re smart. I know what is MEANT by it, but it’s a misstatement of real world physics.

You can wave your hands about all you want, doesn’t change the fact that most of the residual warming due to gasses in the atmosphere is caused by water vapor, not CO2. You can get an idea of how this works if you hang around a desert as night falls. All that CO2 doesn’t stop the temperature from dropping rapidly, but the right kind of clouds will.

DavidAppell
May 4, 2016 at 7:00 PM

“…it’s the misnamed “greenhouse effect”.”

No one — except, it seems, you — thinks the atmosphere is literally like a greenhouse.

There you go lying about me. I am the one saying it is NOT like a greenhouse and that this is perhaps one of the worst possible similes because it is NOT like a greenhouse because it does NOT physically TRAP heat. YOU are the one trying to attribute the argument of people like yourself, who are full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism, to me.

At least you admit that to call it a “GREENHOUSE EFFECT” and to call them “GREENHOUSE GASSES” is incorrect and misleading.

Which was the point I was making.

So let’s leave this one, unless you want to lie some more about it.

DavidAppell
May 4, 2016 at 8:14 PM

It is similar to a greenhouse effect, because the greenhouse effect does trap heat. The Earth’s surface is about 30 C warmer than it would be without it.

I was just about to ignore the rest of yours, since I’ve scanned through them and you have only referenced propaganda sites – sites full of propaganda, lies and talking points, in response to my posting peer-reviewed, published works written by people who actually take a similar stance as yours but at least seem to be finally admitting the truths you still refuse to acknowledge.

FACT: Despite the admission that there was more CO2 in the atmosphere in the last two decades, it is as “SETTLED SCIENCE” as is anything that the surface warming actually slowed down with more CO2 in the atmosphere.

Pretty much demolishes your belief that CO2 is the master control knob for surface temperature.

I already saw that your response to that is to cherry pick end points to come up with a line with a constant slope and to ignore the variation that occurs within that period.

The lengths you go to in order to remain deliberately deluded are fascinating.

Not at all. We have no idea what the total ocean pH is doing. We take a few measurements from a tiny fraction of the surface on rare occasions and that is not adequate to state what the entire ocean is doing.

Plus as I pointed out, the pH is near neutral and moved, over the last 250 years or so, 0.11 units closer to NEUTRAL, or less reactive.

Your claim the ocean (implying the ENTIRE ocean the way you write it and say it) is turning to acid is the typical scare mongering you and your ilk use to try to fool those who are even less intelligent than yourselves. A small change, when the pH is near neutral, can be disingenuously expressed as “30%”, but remember, we’re talking about a change of 0.11 over almost 250 years here. Nothing to get your panties in a twist over, Dave.

NO, because there is ZERO evidence to support any claim that the entire ocean’s pH has been measured to the level necessary to support such a claim.

I will agree that, over a period of about 250 years, very limited measurements, inadequate to support any such claim, if nevertheless deemed falsely to be adequate to support such a claim are taken at face value, then the average pH of the ocean’s surface waters at the sampled location show a change of 0.11 towards neutral over a 250 year period. However, since the samples probably were not properly corrected for time of day, time of year and local bias they are essentially meaningless and your scare tactic claim that the entire ocean is turning to acid is ridiculous, since in fact these inadequate measurements of the surface waters indicate if anything, it is becoming LESS REACTIVE, moving towards NEUTRAL, though only by a tiny fraction. Due to the fact it’s so close to neutral, or NON REACTIVE, a small change can be deliberately misrepresented as a large one if you try – and you’re trying, I’ll grant you that!

DavidAppell
May 11, 2016 at 6:06 PM

“NO, because there is ZERO evidence to support any claim that the entire ocean’s pH has been measured to the level necessary to support such a claim.”

“Of course there is [reason to need “greenhouse gasses” to explain Earth’s average surface temperature of ~14°C], and you can’t prove otherwise.”

No, there is only the silly trick of calculating temperature from average insolation reaching but not reflected by Earth’s surface.

The silly trick ignores the all of the heat that is stored in the oceans, atmosphere and regolith, and the chemical storage of energy in plants. The storage of heat causes a time delay between insolation and loss by radiation, and a stored energy hysteresis in the diurnal and annual cycles

It is obvious that the Sun can heat parts of Earth’s surface to much higher than 50 deg C without needing “greenhouse gases”, and that Earth’s surface cools mainly by convection and latent heat transport, and not primarily by radiation.

What reason explains why you have not fallen for a silly trick?

DavidAppell
May 17, 2016 at 5:57 PM

When I wrote, “3. When EM radiation is absorbed by an object, does that object gain the radiation’s energy?”

you answered “not necessarily.”

So when doesn’t that happen?

DavidAppell
May 19, 2016 at 7:15 PM

BTW the greenhouse effect on Earth is 30-35°C, not “~14°C.”

BigWaveDave
May 25, 2016 at 4:07 AM

~14C is the approximate average surface temperature, idiot! Pay attention.

DavidAppell
May 26, 2016 at 9:43 PM

Wrong — that calculation assumes no clouds. It was claimed that if temperatures were low enough there would be no clouds.

Clearly this is wrong, since clouds appear in the Arctic and in the cold stratosphere.

DavidAppell
May 19, 2016 at 7:19 PM

“Stick to the subject, and admit that you can’t give a real life example of a cold object warming a hot object.”

We’ve been through this — it’s an elementary conclusion of basic laws of physics, and it’s happening around us all the time.

The Earth’s surface actually receives more energy from the atmosphere than it does the sun — about twice as much:

I’m way ahead of you. When the pH is above 7, any reduction is moving towards neutral.

You and your despicable ilk carefully craft your claims in ways that are designed to mislead. This borders on a criminal act, as it is deliberate deception, calculated chicanery,

Of course any negative change in pH is a move towards acidity, but when the pH is >7 it is a move towards LESS REACTIVE.

And you also make a big deal about how a tiny change (when the pH is >7) can be expressed as a seemingly larger percentage in the prevalence of negative ions since there are so few of them about that any tiny change seems larger the further above 7 you get.

You’re an example of how a tiny bit of knowledge can be misused in significant ways.

DavidAppell
May 23, 2016 at 10:12 PM

Nature doesn’t care about your pH numbers.

It reacts to the actual chemical structure of the ocean. And the ocean is acidifying.

Now before I respond to your comment, which I note has NOTHING TO DO WITH OCEAN ACIDIFICATION, I will point out you said you are going to ignore any comments that aren’t on that topic, so I expect you to keep your word and NOT reply to this one.

Here you display a fundamental misunderstanding of both atmospheric physics AND basic theories that are full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism.

You and others who hold such theories to be dogma, unassailable, suggest that there is some limit to the amount of water vapor that can be in the air and there is in fact a temperature dependent limit – air of a certain temperature can only hold so much water vapor.

However, as water vapor is a greenhouse gas, the more water vapor that is in the air, the higher the temperature goes, and the more water vapor can be added… up to a point. There must be some limiting factor, because if that were all there was to it, the oceans would boil and all the water would be in the atmosphere.

Now your modification to my analogy suggests that, somehow, once the 4 fans representing carbon dioxide start yelling, they somehow supercharge the 300 fans that represent water… but that is not what even your theory claims happens. Your alarmist warming theory says the power of water stays the same, but the QUANTITY of water changes because, as discussed briefly above, warmer air can hold more water vapor before becoming saturated. There should be detectable increases in:

1) evaporation and atmospheric water vapor
2) convection
3) release of latent heat in the lower troposphere and
4) measured temperature due to that release of heat

You may remember how the models predicted an atmospheric “hot spot” that stubbornly refused to appear for a great length of time, to the embarrassment of the acolytes of the Church of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism. And even when they finally claimed they found it they had to admit it was nowhere near what their models said it would be.

So in this case the proof, which you still have not provided, is that, according to Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism theory, we should have seen a measurable increase in atmospheric water vapor by now, more convection and significantly more warming in the middle to upper troposphere.

Before you deny or discuss it, first, remember you said you were only going to talk about ocean acidification (after talking about, presumably, 25 other things, then expecting me to just not rebut your fallacious arguments on each, I guess), and second, if you ARE going to try to argue the point, do it with peer reviewed, published SCIENCE, not sites that are full of lies, propaganda and talking points like you always do.

Based on theoretical considerations and simulations with General Circulation Models (GCMs), it is expected that any warming at the surface will be amplified in the upper troposphere. The reason for this is quite simple.

More warming at the surface means more evaporation and more convection. Higher in the troposphere the (extra) water vapour condenses and heat is released. Calculations with GCMs show that the lower troposphere warms about 1.2 times faster than the surface. For the tropics, where most of the moist is, the amplification is larger, about 1.4.

This change in thermal structure of the troposphere is known as the lapse rate feedback. It is a negative feedback, i.e. attenuating the surface temperature response due to whatever cause, since the additional condensation heat in the upper air results in more radiative heat loss.

In the IPCC AR4 (2007) this was presented graphically. I’ll pause while you look it up.

The figure shows the response of the atmosphere to different forcings in a GCM. As one can see, over the past century, the greenhouse forcing was expected to dominate all other forcings. The expected warming is highest in the tropical troposphere, dubbed the tropical hot spot.

The discrepancy between the strength of the hot spot in the models and the observations has been a controversial topic in climate science for over 25 years. The controversy [i] goes all the way back to the first paper of Roy Spencer and John Christy [ii] about their UAH tropospheric temperature dataset in the early nineties. At the time their data didn’t show warming of the troposphere. Later a second group (Carl Mears and Frank Wentz of RSS) joined in, using the same satellite data to convert them into a time series of the tropospheric temperature. Several corrections, e.g. for the orbital changes of the satellite, were made in the course of years with a warming trend as a result. However the controversy remains because the tropical troposphere is still showing a smaller amplification of the surface warming which is contrary to expectations.

DavidAppell
May 4, 2016 at 11:41 PM

There have been many replies. Too many to resolve anything. So I’ve reduced the discussion to ocean acidification.

Do you agree that the ocean has acidified by 30% since the beginning of the industrial era?

That’s a deliberate misrepresentation and also wrong. The total ocean has changed little. The surface waters have ALLEGEDLY changed their pH value by 0.11 units over a period approaching 250 years. But this is based on limited, questionable measurements. Furthermore, this change is smaller than daily and seasonal changes in pH that have been measured so it’s pretty much meaningless.

To recap – NO, the entire ocean is not 30% more acid, the INSUFFICIENT measurements I referenced above suggest that a limited and INSUFFICIENT sampling of the SURFACE WATERS leads to a dubious claim of a pH change of .11 units TOWARDS NEUTRAL, or LESS REACTIVE, but the pH is still alkaline, not acidic.

When the pH is close to neutral, as it is, a small change can be expressed, in deliberately disingenuous fashion, as if it were a large one. Typical of your past behavior and that of your ilk, that is exactly what you are doing – doing your best to mislead by sensationalizing a perfectly normal, natural process.

DavidAppell
May 4, 2016 at 11:45 PM

Are you Marcel Cook? Because one of your sentences is plagarized from this:

No such luck, we’re sticking to the topics of your previous posts. No moving the goal posts – another of your favorite tactics when you won’t admit you’re losing the debate.

No making this about me. This is not about me. If you think I failed to attribute something properly, indicate what it is. I’m not perfect, I make mistakes too. You haven’t attributed much of the nonsense you’ve been spewing, not since I tumbled onto the fact you get your ‘science’ from a site that is run by a hack cartoonist.

And as noted, I gave a reference to the site I got that information from – HIS OWN SITE. Of course he’s changed the page since then. I used the way back machine to recover his earlier quote.

Fact is that I ONLY posted under my real name… until I found out that lunatic liberals much like you were viciously attacking, and also threatening the family of, a local university professor (who’s name was remarkably similar to mine) here at UCSD who contacted me, once he found out that they were after me, not him, and begged me to stop doing so.

The irony was he was also a lunatic liberal.

In any case, one of today’s burning questions is why there are actually people in this world stupid enough to believe that a little CO2 in the atmosphere (400 ppmv) is what is controlling oceanic heat trends.

But, given that they got the warming/CO2 relationship backwards, it’s not surprising they also have the atmosphere/ocean relationship backwards.

Needing to believe in and perpetrate a hoax drives them to do very odd things.

As I said, I always posted under my real name UNTIL A UCSD professor (who’s name was remarkably similar to mine) started getting threats and hate mail from people like YOU – who knows, maybe YOU were one of those doing it. Liberal losers such as yourself threatened him, his family, because that’s what you liberals do and why you “succeed” in your efforts – too many people back down to your nonsense out of fear.

So you’ve never, ever posted under any other name but David Appell? Not once?

Aren’t you the guy who keeps recommending I check out the scribblings of some guy who posts… USING A PSEUDONYM? That was you who suggested that, wasn’t it? Why are you a big fan of other people who post under pseudonyms and so hateful when I do it? That old liberal DOUBLE STANDARD thing again?

DavidAppell
May 11, 2016 at 7:45 PM

We’ve already seen that Bodhisattva = Marcel Cook, because you have heavily copied his work, word-for-word.

I also quoted Michael Mann. So does that make me Michael Mann? Plus I quoted the IPCC – so I’m the IPCC?

Here’s a quote from Al Gore because today I feel like being falsely accused of being Al Gore!

Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are… Former Vice President Al Gore in an Interview with Grist Magazine May 9, 2006

That was Al Gore admitting that he believes it is appropriate TO LIE to get people to react out of fear, throw logic and reason out the window and react emotionally, when he stands to make millions in the process. And that’s exactly what he did – and he’s laughing at you and your ilk all the way to the bank!

Because IF YOU TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE, IT’S CAUSES AND LIKELY RESULTS, nobody will care.

Now let me see who else I can get you to accuse me of being:

“We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” Stephen Schneider (leading advocate of the global warming theory in interview for Discover magazine, Oct 1989)

“Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing — in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” Tim Wirth, U.S. Senator.

“No matter if the science is all phony; there are collateral environmental benefits…. Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

Christine Stewart, former Minister of the Environment of Canada, quote from the Calgary Herald, 1999

“Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”

OTTMAR EDENHOFER, co-chair of the IPCC’s Working Group III, also a lead author of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report released in 2007, explaining how this isn’t really about carbon or climate but rather about wealth redistribution.

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution. This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”

No, I’m not Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitting here that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism and pull off the largest fraudulent wealth redistribution scheme, in history – and no doubt raking a generous portion off the top in the process. And flying all around the world to exotic locations, spewing carbon all the way, to talk about how we have to spew less carbon, as they spew more and more.

POP QUIZ: What actual reductions, not promises, but actual reductions, in the total carbon emitted by humans have been accomplished after all the money and effort spent by the IPCC and everyone else involved?

Has Al Gore stopped buying huge homes that create tremendous carbon waste to heat, cool and maintain? Is he still flying on a private jet? Travelling around in fleets of SUVs?

BigWaveDave
May 4, 2016 at 10:21 PM

You said:
“Actually essentially ALL of the IR radiated by the Earth is absorbed by the atmosphere. Then the atmosphere re-radiates it, some of it downward”
The first part “essentially ALL” is probably less than 90%, so you only stretched it a little, but you completely missed the obvious point of Bodhisattva’s
“Not all the re-radiated heat that you speak of makes it to the ground, some of it is re-absorbed by CO2 on the way then re-radiated back up.”,
which is that a share of downward re-radiation must get re-re-radiated upward again (and perhaps again and again so I’ll call it re^n-radiation).

What is the downward fraction of the “ghg” re^n-radiation that is attributable to CO2?
Bodhisattva analogizes the preposterous hypothesis that CO2 contributes significantly to surface temperature with:
“You’re suggesting 4 fans rooting for the away team control the crowd noise in a stadium of 10,000….”
to which you zealously replied:
“Yes. Because each of those 4 fans is EXTREMELY LOUD.”

Yep, they are at least as loud as you are ignorant.

DavidAppell
May 4, 2016 at 10:23 PM

I see you want to avoid this, but our entire conversations turns on it:

When I wrote, “3. When EM radiation is absorbed by an object, does that object gain the radiation’s energy?”

you answered “not necessarily.”

When doesn’t that happen?

DavidAppell
May 4, 2016 at 7:03 PM

“You’re suggesting 4 fans rooting for the away team control the crowd noise in a stadium of 10,000….”

Know how much ozone is in the ozone layer? 10 ppm (1 molecule in 100,000).

Are you suggesting that ozone is “well mixed”. Do you know what you would be if we put you in an atmosphere containing 10 ppm ozone?

Why is it you’re comparing a layer that is at the top of the atmosphere with what is supposedly a well mixed gas (that’s what we were told, turns out not to be exactly true) when the two are as different as the sun and the moon?

Do you always use inappropriate comparisons, hoping nobody knows better?

Don’t answer that, I know from my past attempts to see if you would be honest that you do.

Inhalation: Causes dryness of the mouth, coughing, and irritates the nose, throat, and chest. May cause difficulty in breathing, headache, and fatigue. The characteristic sharp, irritating odor is readily detectable at low concentrations (0.01 to 0.05 ppm).

Eye Contact: Ozone is an irritant to the eyes causing pain, lacrimation, and general inflammation.

Good thing the ozone layer is nowhere near the surface of the Earth, huh?

You know, ozone is a greenhouse gas also, right? SO when we were supposedly destroying the ozone layer we were fighting global warming, and it is possible some of this warming you are so afraid of is due to our efforts to stop destroying the ozone layer. yaTHINK?

Let’s speak no more of [ozone] yet there you are continuing to bring it up and speaking about it.

Hey, if you didn’t want to talk about ozone, why did you bring it up in the first place?

You going to take my advice and stop talking about it, or you going to keep talking about it after saying let’s not?

And by the way, you already lied and broke your promise to only talk about pH in other ways, too.

DavidAppell
May 11, 2016 at 6:03 PM

Marcel Cook (= Bodhisattva): The exact value of pH and how you choose to classify it is not the relevant factor for ocean impacts — changes in acidity is relevant. Differences from adaptation are relevant.

I don’t know what nonsense you’re trying to peddle claiming I’m Marcel Cook. But you can keep it up, it only makes you look silly.

Yes, the exact value of pH IS the ONLY thing that is relevant. You cited an article that claims that snail shells are dissolving due to acid oceans but that is a blatant lie. The oceans are not acid, they’re alkaline. And all they saw was an ALLEGED change in the weight of the shells, which could be due to any number of things OTHER than ocean pH.

But the other thing is that ocean pH is not a static value, it is ALWAYS CHANGING. And CO2 is not the only thing that causes it to change. And human CO2 is a tiny fraction of the total carbon budget of the planet. I know these facts make you so uncomfortable you refuse to acknowledge or discuss them, so we really can’t begin to have a discussion since you refuse to accept reality.

Except we already know the claim that the oceans are turning into acid IS A LIE. The oceans are becoming LESS REACTIVE, the pH is MOVING TOWARDS NEUTRAL, LESS REACTIVE.

Your citing alarmist propaganda, lies and talking points, which is all you’ve ever done. That’s not science, by the way. You still got no science to back up your wild, obviously false assertions about the ocean turning to acid, I note!

Many natural processes affect acidity levels in the environment—examples include photosynthesis and respiration—so the acidity may vary by an order of magnitude or more (or in pH units, by 1 or more) as a result of natural biological, physical, and geological processes on a variety of different spatial and temporal scales.

Scientists have observed that natural variability in seawater acidity (and thus pH) is strong and can be much larger on short time scales than the observed and projected changes in acidity due to alleged ocean acidification due to atmospheric CO2 over the scale of decades to centuries.

Ocean acidification, related to the uptake of CO2 at the ocean surface, causes a relatively slow, long-term increase in the acidity of the ocean, corresponding to a decrease in pH. Since the Industrial Revolution, the global average pH of the surface ocean has decreased by 0.11 from approximately 8.25 to 8.14. This is movement TOWARDS NEUTRAL, TOWARDS LESS REACTIVE.

Over the course of the Earth’s history there have been significant periods when the geologic record suggests that oceanic reefs essentially ceased to exist, or at least left no record of their continued existence. Despite fraudulent claims that such changes are unprecedented, the fact is they are not. And we are nowhere near such an event. In fact the biosphere is THRIVING. The deserts, which you & your ilk claimed were becoming more arid, getting larger, worse, are actually GREENING:

No, what is controversial is your deliberately deceptive decision to describe it in percentage terms.

Since the pH is above 7, instead of giving a more reasonable, descriptive explanation of what is going on (the pH OF THE SURFACE WATERS has allegedly changed on the order of -.11 over around 150 years or so) you deliberately try to make it sound as bad as you can by expressing it in the way that maximizes it. You leave out that the only reason it’s a 30% change is because, with so few negative ions, a tiny change is proportionally large.

This is the same deliberately deceptive way you express the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and the change in that amount over time.

Now fortunately there’s a fairly large portion of the population that won’t react with fear the way you and your ilk hope, but rather will ask more questions – well how much is 30% and over what time frame? How was this figure determined? And the most important question, IS IT VALID?

You avoid answering where these measurements were taken, when, how, over what period of time, during what times of the year – all questions that involve a real understanding of what’s going on, since ocean pH changes NORMALLY AND NATURALLY throughout the day, throughout the year and over time.

DavidAppell
May 23, 2016 at 10:12 PM

pH is meaningless. It’s just a made-up number for the convenience of know-nothings like you. Nature doesn’t care what your pH values are.

The acidify of the ocean is increasing — 30% since the Industrial Revolution.

You still don’t seem to get it. I will let the membership and leadership of the American Chemical Society know you’ve decreed that pH is meaningless, a made-up number. That happens to be critical to a number of industrial and end user processes right down to making sure it’s safe to swim in my pool or jump into my hot tub!

Talk about KNOW NOTHING!

And here’s another direct quote example from you:

The acidify of the ocean is increasing

You just used a verb where a noun belongs. Talk about KNOW NOTHING!

And no, this whole kerfuffle is based on

seawater that is undersaturated with respect to aragonite upwelling onto large portions of the continental shelf, reaching depths of ~40 to 120 meters along most transect lines and all the way to the surface on one transect off northern California.

and an experiment where they took a bunch of Limacina helicina and tortured them until they found a level of pH that would dissolve their shells in a month and a half, then said that level is what they expect the whole ocean will become by the year 2100. Someone should have reported this blatant example of animal cruelty to PETA.

As usual with you who are full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism, they also take single bits anecdotal evidence and falsely claim there’s a trend, when in fact the trend is exactly the opposite: See the claims about more, and more powerful tropical cyclones while the global Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) index has been generally declining since that prediction was made. One of the anecdotes involved a company that took certain fish out of their natural environment and tried to raise them in surface waters of a different pH than the fish normally experienced in their natural habitat. It didn’t work out so bueno.

And there you are with your “but… but… but… 30%!” claim.

Yes, indeed, it has, but only because, at pH values that HIGH there’s such a DEFICIT of positive ions that a tiny change equals 30%! I already explained this to you!

And no, pH is not a “made up number”, it is a tool to describe the number of moles of hydrogen ions per cubic decimeter. The name stands for “potential of Hydrogen” and it is determined by the logarithm of the reciprocal of hydrogen ion concentration in gram atoms per liter. It’s not made up, it’s a DIRECT and VITAL measurement.

I was going to ask you WHICH LOG because you probably don’t know. But I decided to just move on.

By claiming it’s irrelevant you prove who the KNOW NOTHING IS!

It’s you!

Over nearly 250 years (from around 1751 to around 1994) the CLAIM is that surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.25 to 8.14.

A decrease of 0.11. Over about 250 years.

That’s a change of 0.00044 per year. Doesn’t sound so scary when you use the actual numbers instead of finding and using the scariest way to express it (which still isn’t that scary – 30% over 250 years works out to 0.0012 per year).

Because the number of free hydrogen ions is so scarce at this pH level (less than 10 to the negative 8 power), because expressing it APPROPRIATELY does not invoke the FALSE FEAR that the ocean is turning to acid (see the definition of ACIDIFY – which is defined as TURNING TO ACID) when in fact it is becoming LESS REACTIVE, moving towards neutral, ever so slightly, a tiny change can be accurately expressed as 30% by those wishing to give the false impression that this change, at this level, is significant.

Yes, just as we measure speed in MPH or KPH, and we measure distance in miles or km and we measure time in hours, minutes and seconds – all of these things being HUMAN CONSTRUCTS and none being something you can just dismiss if you live in the real world like I do.

Why don’t you go jump into a large, deep pool of liquid with pH of 2 then tell me how pH isn’t important? Do that and let us know how that works out for you!

As I explained, the only reason this MINUSCULE change in pH can be expressed as “30%” was because the “acidity” (which was actually alkalinity) was SO LOW that a TINY CHANGE still works out to 30%.

Plus as I pointed out, there are areas of the ocean (and other bodies of water) which are routinely a LOT LOWER IN pH (i.e. a lot more ‘acidic’, and yet still alkaline) than this average level that resulted – and yet life THRIVES there. These measurements are not representative of the entire ocean – this is what you don’t seem to understand – or, if you do, it just proves you’re even more of a deliberate liar than I’ve already proven you to be.

The point you seem to stubbornly refuse to admit or discuss, but you just slipped up and did mention it, is that yes, nature responds to acidity OR IT’S CONVERSE, ALKALINITY (sic: alkalanity).

And the oceans, according to ALL, have become LESS REACTIVE. Have MOVED TOWARDS NEUTRAL.

This is not scary enough. Hence your continued yammering about how the oceans are turning to acid – yes, you never used those words, but you know that is the intent. To fool liberals, who are easily fooled, into believing that yes, the oceans are turning to acid when the chance is so minuscule that human blood pH changes that much with no significant issues, the ocean pH changes that much sometimes in a day or over the course of a year with no problems.

You can continue to be frightened by what is normal and natural. Don’t expect us to join you.

But I do recommend you make an appointment to have your medications checked.

DavidAppell
May 29, 2016 at 3:33 AM

Blah blah bitch whine bitch blah whine.

The only thing that matters is how ocean acidity differs from what organisms have adapted to.

And that acidity has increased by 30%.

Quite a lot.

DavidAppell
May 29, 2016 at 3:35 AM

“Hence your continued yammering about how the oceans are turning to acid”

I have never said the ocean is turning to acid.

You are a cheap slut whore liar.

You should be ashamed of yourself, for continually lying about this.

DavidAppell
May 29, 2016 at 3:38 AM

“And the oceans, according to ALL, have become LESS REACTIVE. Have MOVED TOWARDS NEUTRAL.”

You seem to think that the entire ocean has experienced a pH change of 30%.

This in fact is another false idea and yet you can’t seem to grasp that you’re wrong, or purposefully misleading others, in this respect.

In review – we’re talking about limited measurements of limited areas over limited times, many of the measurements being nonstandard and suspect, only recent measurements considered to be standardized and trustworthy. Basically those from about 1980 on. And even those don’t cover the whole ocean surface or the ocean depths.

And, as noted, the change in pH we’re talking about is LESS THAN SOME BODIES OF WATER EXPERIENCE IN A DAY, OR OVER THE COURSE OF A YEAR.

And you can’t seem to grasp that this isn’t something to get all excited about because it’s normal and natural, not the dire emergency you keep lying and claiming it is.

Let us put this ridiculous alarmism of yours on this topic to rest once and for all. You are basing your fears on an estimate not on any actual extensive, global, rigorous measurements, that the ocean pH changed 0.11 pH units over nearly 250 years, for an annual change of 0.00044. Further you claim that species cannot handle this sort of change without dying off, apparently – well go ahead and say YOU didn’t claim that, it’s basically what you & your ilk are at least IMPLYING even if you are careful not to actually use those particular words and SAY it.

At Pulau Payar (Strait of Malacca) the natural daily change of pH was found to be 0.05. And the ocean and all it’s little critters and the plants they enjoy are still doing fine.

By the way, since they are actually measuring a change in ALKALINITY they actually express it that way, or by saying “more basic” or “less basic” because scientists try to avoid using scary words – they want to communicate information, not strike fear into the hearts and minds of their audience.

But let’s return to Pulau Payar for one more important point. The big fear you express is over a CLAIMED (but not PROVEN) change in average ocean pH from around 8.25 to around 8.11. You claim this drop is a catastrophe and could doom the whole ocean food chain, don’t you? Or at least that’s the line of total bullfeces that is peddled by your ilk.

The range of pH at Pulau Payar was from 8.15 to 8.1 And this is an area noted for it’s wide diversity of marine animals and plants, all doing fine at pH values that are lower than the low end of the two numbers you’re so afraid of, which you keep misrepresenting as acidification, acidifying, i.e. TURNING TO ACID. Because TURNING TO ACID is the definition of the word you keep using, though you deny it, as if you didn’t know that.

But wait… THERE’S MORE!

In the study I’m quoting from here (The Diurnal Changes of Seawater pH and Alkalinity on the Coral Reefs of the Strait of Malacca and the South China Sea), the other two sites they monitored had pH levels that actually hit 8 regularly – and never made it above 8.05 at one location (Pulau Bidong)… and varied between 7.9 and 7.95 at another (Pulau Gaya)!

Their finding was the pH fluctuates based on patterns governed by biological activities such as photosynthesis and respiration.

And one more thing about your paltry “30%” change – the State of California hath decreed that they will see to it that no matter what nature does, the pH of the waters of various oceanic areas adjacent to the state shall not vary outside the pH range of 6.5 to 8.5. Two whole orders of magnitude. What’s the percentage there, skippy?

30% of a tiny, tiny amount of hydrogen ions is still a tiny, tiny change.

And less than some bodies of water change during the daily cycle. And less than some bodies of water change EVERY YEAR.

As I explained, you’re deliberately trying to avoid admitting that when you have say .000000001 and you change it 30% you’re not talking about a significant change. Yes, you may or may not have explained the calculations correctly on your web page but the point you’re still stubbornly trying to avoid admitting is that 30% of nearly nothing is even less than the nearly nothing you started with.

The pH is ABOVE NEUTRAL, it is ALKALINE, MOVING TOWARDS NEUTRAL, LESS REACTIVE. Explained that way, the honest way, nobody is going to be frightened except liberals who cling bitterly to their fears despite the FACT they’ve been debunked.

You try to belittle pondus hydrogenii, only because you know it’s hard to fear a change from 8.24 to 8.13 or whatever it was on that scale, which is not irrelevant, it’s the common way to express the acidity/alkalinity of things in the real world.

DavidAppell
May 29, 2016 at 3:40 AM

A 30% increase in acidity is a 30% increase in acidity.

It’s not your right to call it large or small.

That depends only on the organisms that have adapted to a particular ocean chemistry and now must adapt to a rapidly changing one.

You are a coward, who can only twist words and bitch and whine. Shameful.

DavidAppell
May 29, 2016 at 3:41 AM

“The pH is ABOVE NEUTRAL, it is ALKALINE, MOVING TOWARDS NEUTRAL, LESS REACTIVE.”

You are a massive liar.

Nobody cares how you label it. The only thing that that matters is chemistry. That is all.

Now you’re playing silly semantic games to avoid having a rational, adult discussion because you know you can only lose if we do that.

The definition of “acidify” is “become acid”.

But thanks for playing and do come again soon!

You’re so fired!

FROM: Diurnal fluctuations in seawater pH influence the response of a calcifying macroalga to ocean acidification

…predicted to cause a decrease in pH of 0.3–0.5 units by the end of the century

And yet to date it ALLEGEDLY only managed a change of 0.11 over 250 years. Suddenly in the next 80 years it’s going to change the pH 3-5 times as much?

I smell Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism!

In this same paper they admit that:

…near-shore marine organisms live in a highly variable pH environment where daily pH fluctuations owing to biological activity can exceed 1 unit. These changes are often driven by primary producers increasing pH in the surrounding seawater during the day via photosynthesis, and decreasing pH at night owing to respiration

And… wait for it!

In some regions, night-time decreases in pH (to less than 7.4) exceed those predicted owing to [alleged] OA over the next 100 years (pH ∼ 7.65).

But… but… this is a change to well below the actual values cited as the average before and after the 250 years! Those were 8.25 and 8.14! How can ANYTHING survive in waters that are as ACIDIC as pH 7.4!

And there’s so much more…

Currently, it is not known how daily shifts in pH within near-shore ecosystems influence the physiology or the ecology of calcifying organisms, nor is it understood how these pH fluctuations could interact with the effects of [alleged] OA. It is difficult to reproduce the environmental heterogeneity that occurs in the field within a laboratory setting. For example, experimental manipulations of light and temperature in experiments with marine species usually use tightly controlled continuous levels, even though these environmental factors are much more variable in the field. To date, only one study has manipulated pH over a diurnal cycle mimicking ecologically relevant pH shifts (daytime pH = 8.00, night-time pH = 7.77)…

I’m guessing the significance of all that will go right past you & none of it will stick.

And didn’t they get the memo that you weren’t supposed to admit that this alleged climate change is actually GOOD?

… in some instances coral recruits responded positively to both daily fluctuations in pH and to OA.

Wow, there goes your whole belief system. And that’s just one paper that killed it. There’s many more!

DavidAppell
May 26, 2016 at 10:16 PM

“Acidification” is an increase in acidity.

That’s exactly what is happening now.

Nature doens’t care about what you call an acid or a base. It cares about the acidity it has adapted to.

Nature doesn’t care because it can’t care. It doesn’t have a brain or an intellect.

And you’re wrong. “Acidification” is an increase in positive ions.

In this case we’re actually likely experiencing a reduction on negative ions, not an increase in positive ions, but I haven’t looked into it to verify that, not that it matters, BECAUSE THE SEA WATER IS STILL CHANGING A TINY, TINY BIT, BECOMING LESS REACTIVE.

A lot of the scary ‘evidence’ you and your ilk use came not from actual real world settings but from lab work that was done by biased people determined to strike fear into the hearts of people, as your side does, AS YOU DO WITH YOUR STUBBORN INSISTENCE THAT 30% IS SIGNIFICANT WHEN WE’RE TALKING ABOUT A TINY CHANGE IN A TINY VALUE.

30% of next to nothing is even less than next to nothing. This is why you want to avoid using REAL VALUES. Now when the real values are huge numbers and the percentage is what seems insignificant you switch and studiously avoid speaking in terms of the percentage.

In terms of percentage, what was the quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere versus everything else 150 years ago and what is the percentage of CO2 versus everything else now?

Do you know how to convert 270 ppmv and 400 ppmv to percentages?

Now I’m being distracted as I rush to finish this, so if I get the math wrong do correct it, will you? But we’re talking about a percent of the atmosphere that went from 0.0270% to 0.0400%, for a total change of what, 0.0130% – which you’re claiming is exerting a dominant influence on the other 99.96% of the atmosphere?

Really?

And what’s more the ocean had VASTLY more carbon stored in it than the atmosphere did – or did you know that?

And you’re claiming that the TINY change in the SMALLER reservoir is driving the change in the LARGER reservoir?

Really?

DavidAppell
May 29, 2016 at 3:46 AM

More lies, Marcel.

Nobody cares about your arbitrary labels.

The only thing that that matters is chemistry. That is all.

And ocean chemistry has become 30% more acidic since the beginning of the industrial era.

You seem to think that if you call me by some other name it will bother me. You sure are childish! Are you ever going to grow up?

Keep calling me whatever you like – it only shows how petulant and ridiculous you are!

You clearly don’t understand chemistry. Because on this end of the pH scale the actual physical change is likely just a reduction in excess OH negative ions, not an increase in H plus ions. But the change, due to where we are on the scale (near neutral) is so small (in relative terms) that even your insistence on using percentage indicates either your profound ignorance or your deliberate attempt to make it into something scary when it really isn’t.

Keep on using scare tactics, it only reveals what a paranoid fool you are to believe your own nonsense. As for me I’m still going to continue to jump in the water, though today was not that great a day for it and I had a previous musical engagement, three of them in fact, it turned out, as some very talented folks asked me to sit in despite the fact I was originally scheduled to only appear once.

DavidAppell
May 29, 2016 at 3:54 AM

Marcel Crok: The pH scale is arbitrary. It is made only for human convenience.

Ocean organisms react only to changes in acidity.

Do you deny that the ocean’s acidity has increased by 30% since the beginning of the industrial era?

DavidAppell
May 29, 2016 at 3:49 AM

“But we’re talking about a percent of the atmosphere that went from 0.0270% to 0.0400%, for a total change of what, 0.0130%.”

How much has the absorption cross section of the atmosphere changed because of this increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration?

Not very much – and do I need to explain what happens to the radiation curve as a heat emitting body warms up or do you know enough about that to actually understand that the heat emitted by the Earth is not all and only emitted on the very narrow areas of the IR spectrum where CO2 is a significant player?

Do you understand how the recent El Niño helped the Earth shed a lot of this heat you and your ilk keep falsely claiming is being stored somewhere? How that event and other similar events, by other names, effectively shed that heat you claim is accumulating?

The primary greenhouse gas is not CO2, no matter how much you anti-science types wish it was. The attack on CO2 is ridiculous and borders on being criminal and I’m just hoping that some common sense returns soon enough to see those who are still pushing this fraud pay for it.

Now bear in mind I’m not saying the Earth hasn’t warmed, but due to the deliberate, ongoing falsification of the records of past temperatures, the deliberate destruction after falsification of some records (JONES), we really won’t know what we SHOULD know and in fact climate science is being pushed back 100 years or more thanks to you & your ilk.

Now I have someone who is demanding my attention – don’t you wish you did?

DavidAppell
May 29, 2016 at 3:59 AM

How much has global average ocean acidity changed since the beginning of the industrial era?

Hansen? Really? The guy who said there would be an ice-free Arctic by now? He’s you’re go-to guy? The guy who said parts of NYC would be under water already? He’s your authority? The guy who made ridiculous, impossible predictions about sea level increases?

Although you did make a good point here that I will emphasize – the more people fail to swallow this farce, your Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism, the worse the predictions have become.

Still, since you provided NO EASILY VERIFIABLE SOURCE for your images, I suspect they’re not quite as valid as those which appear in peer-reviewed presentations. I could be wrong – provide your exact source for these – a URL where you found them.

DavidAppell
May 4, 2016 at 8:16 PM

I gave you Hansen’s projections.
You can see how it compared to reality.

You gave us an image without giving us any sort of actual link as to where it REALLY came from, despite me requesting one both before and after you provided it.

You claim it is from Hansen but it does not match ANY of his public statements. Furthermore, you ignored the CURRENT data that I provided that was what I was talking about – and I provided you with a link to the peer-reviewed, published source. You will find a similar graph in the latest IPCC report, if you bother to look.

I do note that you went back 40 years to find something that does not match the subsequent predictions of the IPCC and others, and does not match the public pronouncements of it’s alleged author.

HOWEVER, if you note the trend of the observations, you will see they’re bout to crash STRAIGHT THROUGH his predictions – so even your likely invalid source proves my point – the observed trend is significantly different than the projected trend. Note Hansen shows the temperature BELOW the observations at first but very shortly the observed temperatures will bulldoze straight through his predictions, clear through to the other side.

My point was, and remains, that the trend appears to be following either his 2c (coal phaseout in 2000) or 3 (no growth) scenario, even though human behavior followed his 1 (fast growth) scenario as shown on the image you provided from Hansen.

And keep in mind the ‘observed’ line you show there is very likely the one that was fraudulently adjusted, not a valid representation of what really occurred. The slope and zero point of the ‘observed’ line are dubious at best.

DavidAppell
May 4, 2016 at 10:33 PM

Again, the discussion is about ocean acidity.

I’m not willing to discuss several items at once, because nothing ever gets resolved that way.

But you gave you Hansen’s projections – that have NOTHING TO DO WITH OCEAN ACIDITY – you’re just trying to get the last word. Go ahead, just ignore my responses to all your posts on all the other topics then.

You can see how it compared to reality. on this graph YOU PRESENTED does it say ANYTHING about ocean acidity?

I did forget to mention that you should look CLOSELY at YOUR GRAPH, because it shows, at the right hand end of the ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS, that the trend flattens out and perhaps even turns negative. That is to say that the more CO2 that was in the atmosphere, the slower the temperature increased, and in fact it is possible (though we will have to wait and see) that an inflection point was reached and with increasing CO2 the average temperature will start to DECLINE!

Gives “hide the decline” a whole new meaning!

I totally understand your desire not to be beaten on every point I brought up. You seem to think you’re unsupported, nonsensical claims about the ocean turning to acid may be the one topic where you might come out on top – but actually you’ve already lost there, too.

DavidAppell
May 4, 2016 at 10:50 PM

I am only willing to discuss one topic at a time.

That topic is about ocean acidity. Until we agree on that, I’m not interested in chasing a dozen different threads to no effect.

I can see why you’re so wrong. You can’t even count your own responses. I posted once and you responded, I believe, approximately 25 times. Now I may need to check each one and make sure… but I saw 25 responses and it appeared they were to my one post. I don’t blame you – you’re doing so bad it’s not surprising you want to limit the areas you’re proven to be clueless about. I’d rather go back to the one where you claim that CO2 is somehow covering a bigger area than all the other constituents of the atmosphere, but if you prefer that I just run circles around you on the topic of ocean acidity, fine, we can go there.

As I SAID, JUST IGNORE ANY OF MY OTHER COMMENTS.

Unless you are still the same guy who just has to get the last word, always, like before.

DavidAppell
May 4, 2016 at 11:01 PM

I’ve made myself clear — I will only discuss one topic at a time, and to begin that topic is ocean acidification.

Because you’re tired of being shot down on so many subjects and you think you’re safe on that one – yet you’ve already been blown out of the water on it, too.

And you lied – despite the fact you posted 25 replies to me then started posting this every time I replied to one of those 25 replies on the topics YOU replied about, you immediately went off on a tangent, claiming that I had committed plagiarism and claiming I was someone I was not, claimed I got something from three different websites, or was it four.

At best I might have failed to include ONE link at ONE point due to being interrupted while answering the flurry of SPAM POSTINGS you were in the middle of producing. But it’s clear you KNEW, as I knew you would, as was OBVIOUS FROM THE CONTEXT that they were not my words, nor was I trying to suggest they were. So you’re false claims of plagiarism were just a lame excuse to break your promise to only discuss your absurd claim that the oceans are turning to acid, which we both know is not the case.

The entire ocean probably has not experienced a significant change in pH. A limited sample of surface waters suggests a change that is smaller than that which occurs daily in some parts of the world and annually in others.

You know, after posting ONE or TWO responses to a couple of your earlier posts, I stepped off the deck and took a walk down the beach and back. When I got back I found about 25 responses by you, on about as many topics, including some that were way out in far left field. I started to respond to each of them and your response, to me continuing to discuss topics YOU chose to write about, was that you were not going to talk about any of those topics YOU chose to write about, you were only going to try to press the ABSURD claim that the oceans are turning to acid.

When they’re actually becoming less reactive, moving towards neutral. But only by a tiny bit – what was it? A pH change of 0.11 over about 250 years? And that’s just a guess, an estimate, and it’s just for a very limited (insufficient) sampling of the surface waters, probably not appropriately corrected for location, time of day, time of year, etc.

And, based on that, you’re still attempting to press the ABSURD claim that THE ENTIRE OCEAN is turning into acid?

Really Dave? That’s what you want to continue to make a fool of yourself asserting?

Be my guest!

(Only you didn’t. Right after posting this LIE, variants of it, about 25 times, you turned right around and went off on different tangents. You haven’t changed. You were a liar before and you’re a liar now.)

Dave Appell says that nobody anywhere should ever schedule any sort of meeting where more than one item is on the agenda because attempting to discuss more than one thing ALWAYS results in NOTHING getting resolved.

You know, Davie, as far as myself and the people I generally choose to associate with, we have no problem multitasking, covering multiple topics at once. Though I can understand someone with severe cognitive deficits might not be able to do that.

And if you hadn’t said that, or variants of that, 25 times THEN IMMEDIATELY TRIED TO SHIFT THE TOPIC TO BEING ALL ABOUT ME your nonsense might have worked.

But I can’t blame you for quickly changing the subject. It only took me 1 post to make a complete fool of you on your chosen topic about how you claim the whole ocean has turned to acid.

You must not get out much, at least not to the beach, eh?

DavidAppell
May 4, 2016 at 7:08 PM

“REAL WORLD temperatures…still are falling behind the lowest predictions,”

You will note that once Jones retired and stopped “adjusting” HadCRUT it quickly fell below the lowest predictions. So did NOAA and GISTEMP – until they were fraudulently adjusted back into the very lower range of predictions, still well below the CMIP-5 line though.

DavidAppell
May 4, 2016 at 7:11 PM

“Now, well before humans even evolved, the Earth reached temperatures that were not only what we enjoy today, but actually significantly warmer.”

Correct.

The big question isn’t about the temperature, it about the ability of species — including humans — to adapt to the very high rate of climate change now taking place.

Robert
May 4, 2016 at 7:22 PM

And, unfortunately, now we are at adaption ….

DavidAppell
May 4, 2016 at 7:26 PM

Yes, we are. I see more and more articles about that lately…. I hope we don’t screw that up as badly as we’ve screwed up mitigation.

Ah there you go with the “high rates of change” nonsense. Utter rubbish, outright lies.

The current rates of change are NOTHING compared to what has happened in the past.

Though we might want to buckle our safety belts… there does seem to be an uptick in severe earthquakes perhaps… or at least I heard some rumblings from those who mind such things. There is evidence that increased tectonic activity could be in our future and that would not be a good thing. I’m not making a prediction, mind you, just speculating.

DavidAppell
May 4, 2016 at 7:12 PM

“You’re suggesting 4 fans rooting for the away team control the crowd noise in a stadium of 10,000, overwhelming 9,996 fans of the home team, basically.”

The vast, vast majority of those 9,996 fans are impervious to infrared radiation. They don’t even notice it.

Imagine you are asked to throw a ball and hit one of mulitiple targets on the side of a barn.

On the barn are N targets, each of area A.

Does the probability of your hitting a target depend only on N?

No, of course not. It also depends on how large the targets are. It depends on the product N*A.

It’s the same with CO2. You are only considering N, and not considering the product N*A.

And CO2 has a large A for the infrared light emitted by the Earth and atmosphere.

I doubt you understand the invalidity of your argument, but exactly how many times bigger do you claim the N*A is for CO2 than the N*A for other atmospheric constituents. Why don’t you list them.

As usual, you make a weak argument without any actual supporting evidence, mostly hand waving. You haven’t changed.

Are you claiming CO2 is significantly bigger than H2O? If so, cite your detailed evidence for that argument.

I suspect you’re actually trying to make a completely different argument and don’t even realize it, but we shall see. Because the idea that CO2 is significantly bigger than ANY other atmospheric constituent, such that it would make up for the fact it’s presence is next to nothing in the atmosphere, is ridiculous.

DavidAppell
May 4, 2016 at 8:22 PM

“I doubt you understand the invalidity of your argument, but exactly how many times bigger do you claim the N*A is for CO2 than the N*A for other atmospheric constituents.”

Exactly how many times bigger do you claim the N*A is for CO2 than the N*A for other atmospheric constituents.

Claiming that it peaks at about 10,000 square meters per kilogram – are you suggesting that is in any way an answer to my question? Are you claiming there’s 1 kilogram of CO2 in every 10,000 square meters of atmosphere?

Sounds like you believe the atmosphere is two dimensional…

Guess again.

DavidAppell
May 4, 2016 at 10:10 PM

I told you, one issue at a time. We’re currently discussing ocean acidity. When we agree on that science we can move on.

Funny, you didn’t stay on topic for very long. In fact it was you who brought up ozone, you who brought up 10,000 m2/kg of CO2, you who brought up a bunch of other topics in a bunch of other posts and you who switched to trying to make it all about me right after promising, PROMISING, at least 10 times we were only going to talk about acid – are you taking some? That would explain your behavior, at least.

Well, since you’re apparently NEVER going to admit that the ocean isn’t turning to acid, and still claiming that insufficient measurements of only surface waters are the last word, we’re not going to agree since the ocean isn’t turning to acid and insufficient measurements of the surface aren’t even enough to accurately state what’s happening there, let alone in the rest of the ocean.

And you still haven’t admitted that the claimed change is on the order of a tiny drop of 0.11 on the pH scale, TOWARDS NEUTRAL, or LESS REACTIVE, leaving the ocean waters still in the ALKALINE range, not ACIDIC.

This is EXACTLY why people like me throw up our hands and just wonder how someone can be so ignorant of reality.

The higher the pH, the more scarce the negative ions – in fact there’s a DEFICIT, which is why the pH is ALKALINE. You don’t seem to understand basic chemistry! The 30% is only 30% because it takes such a little change to seem, when you deliberately express it in the most deceiving way, like more than it really is. You’re talking about a change of 0.11 in 150 years or so. There is nothing abnormal or unnatural about that.

DavidAppell
May 23, 2016 at 10:08 PM

Marcel: I said the ocean is ACIDIFYING, not, dummy, that the ocean is acid.

Every solution has an acidity — even very basic solutions have an acidity.

When that acidify increases, the solution is “acidifying.”

If you don’t know this, you are a scientific ignoramous.

DavidAppell
May 11, 2016 at 6:01 PM

“And you still haven’t admitted that the claimed change is on the order of a tiny drop of 0.11 on the pH scale, TOWARDS NEUTRAL, or LESS REACTIVE, leaving the ocean waters still in the ALKALINE range, not ACIDIC.”

Dumb, Marcel Cook. Organisms adapted to pre-industrial acidification levels, and don’t give a toss how how you classify the ocean’s acidification.

Ocean pH is not and has never been static. Organisms exist and adapt to a range of pH values – the surface/regional pH of the water changes daily, also annually. The geologic record is crammed full of organisms that failed to adapt and left behind only traces, no descendants. You act as if there is something unusual about extinction when it is the rule, not the exception.

Why are you so terrified of change? What is it about change that makes you so obviously numb with fear?

From a survey of the organisms adversely affected by pH it would seem that many of them are organisms that were introduced and were in areas they did not naturally colonize. One such article that comes immediately to mind talked about the adverse affects of the NORMAL, NATURAL pH in an area where fish that were not normally found there were brought in to be farmed for human consumption.

Also, what is the geologic history of the white cliffs of Dover? of the subsoils of Florida prone to the formation of sink holes?

DavidAppell
May 23, 2016 at 10:09 PM

Why did you plagarize Marcel Cook?

Why are you afraid to simply state who you are?

DavidAppell
May 4, 2016 at 10:10 PM

“Are you claiming there’s 1 kilogram of CO2 in every 10,000 square meters of atmosphere?”

You’re the one who made the claim. And I note the claim you made had NOTHING TO DO ABOUT ACIDITY.

But again, no, your attempt to claim the oceans are turning into acid is a huge lie. They are not. They’re becoming LESS REACTIVE. Don’t you know how the pH scale works? What number represents the strongest acid, what number represents the strongest alkaline and what number represents neutral? I think you do. I think you’re just PRETENDING to be stupid.

But I’ve been wrong before!

BigWaveDave
July 3, 2016 at 10:11 PM

I too thought DA was maybe just pretending, but he has proved I was wrong.

Arrogant ignorance is required to argue there is science that supports belief in anthropogenic climate change.

This is the second time I’ve run across him preaching the Gospel according to the church of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism (most people don’t bother to try to work out the acronym) and he’s making even less sense this time around.

Indeed only the willfully ignorant could possibly claim that humans have usurped the orders of magnitude greater natural forces that dominate weather, temperature and climate.

Do humans have some influence?

What living thing does not have some influence on it’s environment?

The short answer is none.

So while I am all for finding ways to reduce any NEGATIVE effects we have on the environment, this senseless war against CO2 is sheer insanity – because the science PROVES that increasing CO2 is GOOD for the biosphere (see links below) and history proves that the warm wet times are GOOD for the human species as well as the biosphere.

http://principia-scientific.org/tag/us-geophysical-research-letters/
A new study, based on satellite observations, CSIRO, in collaboration with the Australian National University (ANU) reported that the rising levels of carbon dioxide have caused deserts to start greening and increased foliage cover by 11 percent from 1982-2010 across parts of the arid areas studied in Australia, North America, the Middle East and Africa.

Also, the evidence is UNDENIABLE that there is no direct link between surface warming and CO2 levels in the direction they claim:

… the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade) … is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade).

It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims. A large body of scientific evidence — amassed before and since the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change indicates that the surface warming slowdown, also sometimes referred to in the literature as the hiatus, was due to the combined effects of internal decadal variability and natural forcing.

There are a series of poorly thought out, unsupported assumptions which, if foolishly accepted without engaging critical thinking at any point or demanding actual evidence, do lead one to the false conclusions we’re discussing.

Of course this is accomplished by substituting emotion for logical, critical thinking.

It is true that you can speak of pH decreases from any point on the scale as “acidification” and in fact that is often done BY THOSE WHO DO SO WHILE KEEPING THINGS IN PROPER PERSPECTIVE.

The important issue, which David Appell refuses to even discuss, is that this “increase in acidity” was miniscule – it matters WHERE on the scale we are at any given moment. Plus it has the result that the waters affected by it become LESS REACTIVE while his whole goal and that of his ilk is to make people fear the false belief that the water is becoming MORE REACTIVE as ACID is thought of as something dangerous that will burn and even dissolve you. Finally, we have not done enough measurements often enough to support a claim the oceans (as a whole) are actually becoming more acidic.

These arguments he and his ilk use are chosen both carefully and deliberately to cause an emotional reaction that leads the target audience to a false conclusion – a most despicable form of misdirection I find is common among every single aspect of the typical liberal/progressive/Democrat, on every current issue.

Once there were honest, good Democrats, but I think they all died. Or changed party affiliation. Or perhaps were driven into hiding due to the shame and guilt any thinking person would feel when associating with today’s Democrats. Do you know any honest, good Democrats?

Ah there it is, you’re famous “10,000 m2/kg” statement, which you didn’t back up with… anything. And you accuse ME of stealing things. By the way, you’re talking about acid here? The oceans turning to acid?

I didn’t think so.

LIAR!

DavidAppell
May 11, 2016 at 6:11 PM

10^4 m2/kg is well known. Read any climate textbook, like Pierrehumbert’s.

Interesting – I see you haven’t changed a bit. Making false allegations about what I posted, constructing straw men based on your own twisted thoughts and also outright lying:

Pierrehumbert’s 10,000 m2/kg is junk

You’re the only one who suggested that. I did ask you a question about it – and your response was you were ONLY going to talk about how you believe the ocean is turning into acid when in fact it’s becoming LESS REACTIVE, but only very slightly so.

You remember – I posted you several questions, you made a bunch of tangental responses without actually responding to my questions or saying anything of even slight intelligence, then you said you were ONLY going to talk about how you believe the oceans are turning into acid. Said that around 20 times, didn’t you? Something like that?

And here you are spouting straw men, absolute lies . The only one of us who said his number is junk IS YOU.

As for your question, since I never set up a lab test of CO2 (or any other gas), your question is ridiculous since I don’t have a personal value for the “maximum absorption rate of CO2” and as worded your question doesn’t reallky make any sense whatsoever as it suggests you think of CO2 as a sponge or paper towel that continually sops up carbon dioxide.

I read science fiction, not science fraud. While his book has some limited value, that value is overwhelmed by his nonsensical notion that humans have somehow overpowered the natural forces that still clearly control our weather, temperature and climate, as admitted by the IPCC and Michael Mann (among others):

… the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade) … is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade).

It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims. A large body of scientific evidence — amassed before and since the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change indicates that the surface warming slowdown, also sometimes referred to in the literature as the hiatus, was due to the combined effects of internal decadal variability and natural forcing.

You have not provided any evidence that this effect is ‘enhanced’ in any way. Further, you have not provided any evidence that the Earth has not been warmer, has not warmed faster, in the past. Because it has been warmer, it has warmed faster.

Climate change is normal, natural, INEVITABLE. Thinking humans are a primary driver of climate change trends is a form of narcissism.

DavidAppell
May 4, 2016 at 7:46 PM

“You have not provided any evidence that this effect is ‘enhanced’ in any way.”

None of these links has any proof that the increase in CO2 is anthropogenic. They also don’t claim the magnitude of change in downwelling radiation that your ridiculous theories do. Finally, they don’t prove the claimed forcing values are correct. In the end they CLAIM to have measured a slight increase in downwelling IR which they attribute to CO2. But they also admit:

Over the length of the observation period (2000–2010), the modelled spectra at both SGP and NSA are dominated by trends associated with the temperature and humidity structure of the atmosphere rather than the smaller signal from CO2. The seasonal and annual trends in calculated clear-sky spectra at SGP (Fig. 2a) and NSA (Fig. 2d) are dominated by changes in the atmospheric thermodynamic state and are of opposite sign depending on the season.

Among other things.

One reference (the oldest) claims a statistically significant result at a level that is three times what the most recent work claims exists. The more recent work admits that they are maximizing their result by using only clear sky conditions. AGW catastrophe scenarios depend on higher temperatures causing more evaporation and warmer air to carry more water vapor, which is to do the bulk of the actual warming (the ‘amplification’) yet the paper talks about how the CO2 effect is greatest when there are no clouds. Clear sky conditions. So they are basically admitting to the strong negative feedback present as a built-in feature of our atmosphere.

And, as usual, you provided a link that refers to the same thing as your other link to make it look like you had more studies than you really do. The “newscenter” link is a repeat of what is at the “nature” link.

In conclusion, I will repeat that they CLAIM that, after much hand waving, they’ve detected a very slight increase in downwelling IR that they ATTRIBUTE to CO2. And I’m not saying they’re incorrect, mind you, perhaps they did. There might be a statistically insignificant amount of increased downward IR there, perhaps. Because CO2 is increasing and CO2 is a gas that absorbs and re-radiates IR radiation, as I’ve always agreed. But they provide no proof, nor have you, that the CO2 that is increasing has anything to do with humans. Only speculation to that effect.

And even if, in the end, you are able to establish a clear link between humans and any major fraction of the CO2 trend, what do you expect us to do?

Stop breathing?

You go first. After a year of no breathing get back to us and let us know how it worked out for you.

DavidAppell
May 11, 2016 at 6:10 PM

“None of these links has any proof that the increase in CO2 is anthropogenic.”

“Over the length of the observation period (2000–2010), the modelled spectra at both SGP and NSA are dominated by trends associated with the temperature and humidity structure of the atmosphere rather than the smaller signal from CO2.”

That’s your source. Go back and read it from YOUR SOURCE if you don’t believe it. It CLEARLY STATES that CO2 is NOT the major player you & your deluded ilk claim it to be!

And since I’m not the one demanding we make foolish, radical, disastrous, dangerous policy changes BASED ON FRAUD I don’t have to prove ANYTHING.

But I still just did.

DavidAppell
May 4, 2016 at 7:46 PM

“Further, you have not provided any evidence that the Earth has not been warmer, has not warmed faster, in the past.”

Actually you’re the one saying humans are responsible so it’s up to YOU to prove it. I’m not the one saying we need to make rash, irrational and potentially deadly changes based on lies and nonsense, you are, so the burden of the proof is on you.

As for proof that other factors are still in control, not CO2, without even getting to the question of what is behind the increase in CO2:

It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims. A large body of scientific evidence — amassed before and since the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change indicates that the surface warming slowdown, also sometimes referred to in the literature as the hiatus, was due to the combined effects of internal decadal variability and natural forcing.

If there was science supporting your ridiculous assertions, why haven’t you presented any? Instead you shotgun posted about 25 (or more) different posts, no science included, then insisted you would only talk about how the oceans are turning into acid, then started talking about who I am and where I got a particular quote from.

BigWaveDave
May 4, 2016 at 9:14 PM

Yes, but what is the “greenhouse effect”?

Do I understand correctly that your definition requires that radiation from colder atmosphere above warms warmer atmosphere or surface below?

DavidAppell
May 4, 2016 at 9:19 PM

When I wrote, “3. When EM radiation is absorbed by an object, does that object gain the radiation’s energy?”

you answered “not necessarily.”

When doen’t that happen?

DavidAppell
May 4, 2016 at 9:34 PM

When I wrote, “3) When EM radiation is absorbed by an object, does that object gain the radiation’s energy?”

The warming we’re seeing is what is normal and natural for any interglacial period or for any of the many periods that fall between periods of significant cooling such as the Little Ice Age and whatever the next one will be called when it arrives. Which, according to some solar scientists, could be very soon. If they’re right you’d better PRAY that humans are indeed causing warming.

Personally it’s clear to me that you have to be INSANE to think that the Earth has reached anything like optimum temperature. There’s too much evidence that warming and more CO2 are causing much more good than harm:

The simple fact is we’ve known about this before you screaming lunatics started with your lies about a mass extinction – just the opposite is happening – the biosphere is THRIVING due to increased temperatures and more CO2 in the air:

Re: Your juvenile, irrational need to ignore and deny any evidence that does not fit what you prefer to believe, despite copious evidence it’s not only wrong, but ludicrously so:

Wrong. The most important fact is that with more CO2 in the atmosphere, the rate of warming actually slowed, proving beyond doubt or discussion that CO2 is not the “master control” and in fact it’s conclusive evidence that natural forces still dominate, as we’ve been patiently explaining to you & your ilk from the start.

Now I’ve dealt with you before and it seems you still are unable to provide a single shred of convincing evidence to any of the following:

1) You CAN prove that there is a human CO2 signature in the atmosphere, but you CANNOT prove that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic. If you have any compelling evidence that PROVES human CO2 production has somehow usurped the natural forces that control atmospheric trends, please present it. We will take your failure to do so as an admission you have no such evidence.

2) You CAN prove that CO2 has been increasing but you CANNOT prove, and there is evidence to the contrary in fact, that CO2 has never been higher. If you can produce evidence that atmospheric CO2 has NEVER been higher, please do. We will take your failure to do so as an admission you have no such evidence.

3) You CAN prove that there has been SOME correlation between higher temperatures and higher CO2 but you CANNOT prove that it’s never been cold, or colder, during a period of high atmospheric CO2 and indeed that is the case. Now if you can produce evidence that there’s NEVER been a time when CO2 was higher that it was this cold or colder, please do – because again I’ve seen evidence to the contrary but I’m sure you will just dismiss it with your refusal to accept anything contrary to what you choose to believe. We will take your failure to present evidence that it has never been this cool or cooler during a time of higher atmospheric CO2 as an admission you have no such evidence.

4) Even some of those who are like you, who are full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism admit that the evidence CLEARLY shows that temperature rises FIRST then CO2 starts to rise. Now try to stick to the argument here – which is that the current atmospheric rise in CO2 can be shown to be just another example of this – and I can even show you WHERE the increase is coming from, but again you will just dismiss it as something you simply refuse to believe. In any case, if you do not provide clear and compelling evidence that the CO2 increase was not an EFFECT then we will consider, again, that you have none and you’re wrong about that, too.

5) You CAN prove that CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas which produces most of it’s effect early on but, since it’s influence is a logarithmic function, not a linear one, it’s effects quickly fade to relative insignificance. Now if you think you have evidence that the relationship between CO2 is a linear one and that a rise in temperature will track a rise in atmospheric CO2 as a direct, linear function, please present it. Again, failure to do so will convince us you have no such evidence.

6) in your reply, above, you offered the weak argument that the long term trend in surface temperature has been a consistent 0.15-0.20 C/decade, and I’ll double down on you by pointing out that the long term trend since the mini ice age has been a pretty solid warming trend. You don’t get to move the goal posts. I’ve provided PROOF that warmer is better, that all the scare mongering you and your ilk are doing is nonsense, more CO2 and warmer temperatures are GOOD for the biosphere, GOOD for humans, GOOD for the planet. My position is that the current temperature of the Earth is NOT optimum.

But if you can provide evidence that the Earth has NEVER warmed before at a rate of 015 – 0.20 C/decade then perhaps we can explore that issue further. I know no such evidence exists because the Earth HAS warmed at faster rates than that, normally and naturally, and the fact is that rate is questionable because it did not exist as such until Jones, Hansen and their ilk corrupted the historic temperature datasets to create it and in doing so set climate science back at least 100 years, if not more.

DavidAppell
May 4, 2016 at 6:22 PM

“The most important fact is that with more CO2 in the atmosphere, the rate of warming actually slowed….”

It’s simply amazing the sorts of stuff NOAA will come up with to support the cause. In this case, ignore that the satellite is falling slightly as it orbits, and that the reported resolution is an order of magnitude more precise than the accuracy of the measurement, then adjust the temperature to match the raw sea level data, et voila!, we have Ocean warming.

DavidAppell
May 4, 2016 at 10:40 PM

I think I know why you are avoiding this question.

When I wrote, “3. When EM radiation is absorbed by an object, does that object gain the radiation’s energy?”

Rubbish. Say, didn’t you say you were only going to talk about how you were convinced the world’s oceans were turning to acid when they’re actually becoming LESS reactive? When the pH is moving towards NEUTRAL?

In any case, you said you were going to ignore any posts that didn’t have to do with that single topic so surely you will keep your word and NOT respond to this one!

In any case, good old KARL at NOAA decided that some cherry picking and falsification (or at least deliberate misrepersentation) of data was in order and decided he was just the guy to do it. Since the ARGO floats were quickly disproving the claims that the “missing heat” was hiding in the oceans, the data from that program (and appaerntly other programs) was “adjusted”. There’s even a roundabout mention of the “adjustment” on the page you referenced above.

Basically what KARL and his co-consiprators are trying to claim is that the monster (missing heat) is hiding under the bed (somewhere in the oceans of the world) and is going to jump out and eat us all at some point (cause that runaway global warming you folks have been insisting should have already been here several times).

However, the IPCC and a group of apparently repentant former co-consiprators both say you’re wrong, and so is NOAA’s fraudulent attempt to save theories that are full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism:

… the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade) … is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade).

It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims. A large body of scientific evidence — amassed before and since the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change indicates that the surface warming slowdown, also sometimes referred to in the literature as the hiatus, was due to the combined effects of internal decadal variability and natural forcing.

Now when I told you I expected you to respond with peer-reviewed, published science that supports your ridiculous views, I knew you most likely wouldn’t, because every such work is full of caveats, attributions, escape hatches, etc.

I am surprised that you still haven’t provided a single link to a single peer-reviewed, published work of any recent vintage.

Now keep your word and ignore this post.

DavidAppell
May 4, 2016 at 6:26 PM

“The most important fact is that with more CO2 in the atmosphere, the rate of warming actually slowed”

It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims. A large body of scientific evidence — amassed before and since the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change indicates that the surface warming slowdown, also sometimes referred to in the literature as the hiatus, was due to the combined effects of internal decadal variability and natural forcing.

The latter paper was written as a direct rebuttal to KARL at NOAA, who was likely at least somewhat responsible for that propaganda piece you offered. Take his adjustments out of the data and a different picture emerges.

DavidAppell
May 4, 2016 at 6:58 PM

“…you CANNOT prove that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic.”

Incorrect. Evidence that we have burned fossil fuels does not prove that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic.

And a blog written by hacks is not peer reviewed science.

Uber-FAIL, as expected. The first paragraph on your reference makes the ridiculous, false claim that this idea is “settled science”. Yeah, just like the Earth is flat and is the center of the entire universe, with everything else revolving around it. Also examples of “settled science”.

Other than identifying yourself as a ‘flat Earth’ believer, you have failed to present any valid evidence that humans are the cause of the measured increase in atmospheric CO2.

Your “simple accounting approach” fails, since all we have to do is look at the derivatives of the increase and that logic fails quickly:

What did we do differently in 2012, 2010, 2005, 2002 and 1998 that accounts for those measured spikes?

And how do you account for 1962, 1964, 1967, 1971, 1974, 1976, 1982, 1991, 1992 and 1999?
How is it that the increase in atmospheric CO2 varies so much when human CO2 output does not vary in a corresponding way? When human CO2 output goes the OPPOSITE way in some of those years?

I told you that if you did not present actual science your answer would be considered a fail and so far EVERY ONE OF YOUR MANY ANSWERS ARE FAILS!

Here is another example of the ridiculous logic of your chosen reference:

The oceans are the Earth’s largest carbon storage medium, so if the atmospheric CO2 increase were “natural”, it would likely be coming from the oceans. But we know the CO2 increase is not coming from the oceans, because the pH of the oceans is dropping (a.k.a. ocean acidification).

First of all, the pH of the ocean is moving towards NEUTRAL, becoming LESS REACTIVE, which you and your ilk portray in the worst terms possible – by suggesting to the uneducated that the oceans are turning to acid when in fact they’re becoming LESS REACTIVE, not more.

Also the claim the increase in CO2 is not coming from the oceans can be easily falsified by pointing out that cold, deep, CARBON RICH waters are welling up and increasing the carbon content of surface waters. If the surface temperature were constant, i.e. if we were not still in the process of recovering from the last minor (and for that matter major) glaciation, this would STILL create an imbalance and would still result in an uptick of carbon leaving the oceans for the atmosphere. However, we ARE experiencing the normal, natural warming that occurs between major or minor glacial periods and so this is warming the water and, if you bother to check Henry’s Law, you will see this also tends to produce an outgassing of CO2 into the atmosphere from the warming ocean.

So it looks like you helped prove me right, actually.

THANKS!

DavidAppell
May 4, 2016 at 8:55 PM

“First of all, the pH of the ocean is moving towards NEUTRAL, becoming LESS REACTIVE,”

The acidity of the ocean has increased by 30% since the preindustrial era. Yes?

(This has been your one comment for this exchange. Any more and the conversation is too diluted.)

The acidity of the ocean has increased by 30% since the preindustrial era.

No.

A limited group of samples has been taken and likely cherry picked. You haven’t even produced anything but your say so to support that claim. No proper measurement of the entire ocean, or a reasonable subset of the entire ocean, has been made that would support such a claim. At best one might assert that a very limited sampling of the ocean has been done and the data manipulated to justify such a claim, but it’s validity is questionable at best.

No more talking points. These are THE FACTS:

The pH of the ocean has gone DOWN, it has moved TOWARDS NEUTRAL, TOWARDS LESS REACTIVE.

The ocean is not turning to acid. And you know it.

It is moving towards NEUTRAL. Furthermore the change has been miniscule. Of course you’re going to represent it in the scariest terms you can. Tell me what the actual prior pH allegedly was and what the current pH allegedly is, if you can. These figures are readily available. Then provide the peer-reviewed work that you used as your source.

You’re playing semantic games, as you always do. Trying your best to make something that is normal, natural and not scary be as terrifying as possible to justify your nonsensical world view.

Once the pH level passes 7.0 we can talk about acidity. But right now you’re being deliberately disingenuous because we both know the SURFACE WATERS, not the whole ocean, and in fact only the small areas of the surface that were measured, have yielded readings that SUGGEST the waters IN THOSE AREAS have become slightly less alkaline by 0.11 units over the past 250 years or so.

You are good at leaving out the most important parts of reality, the ones that reveal you as a fraud and a liar. How did you become so good at doing that?

Yeah, you said that, right after you made a bunch of other nonsense comments that you hoped I would just overlook, I guess. No, the ocean is not 30% more acid. At best, if you insist on using a percentage to try to make the change look drastic, the very few areas sampled, only surface water by the way, a very limited number of surface samples, indicate the surface waters in those areas, at those times, have become 0.11 pH units less alkaline over a 250 year or so period. When you approach neutral and wish to mislead you can express it as a percentage, but I find admitting the change is a paltry 0.11 pH units over 250 years or so is a more honest, accurate and understandable way of expressing it. Unless your intent is to deceive and produce unnecessary, irrational fear in a deliberately irresponsible manner.

Knowledge about how the SUN drives our climate, no matter if we have an atmosphere or not. Our liveable climate is the result of having an atmosphere, water, Orbit, rotation and geomagnetic fields at the poles. Or does CO2 drives all of these.

Dano2
May 15, 2015 at 6:31 PM

CO2 is a GHG, thanks, it traps some of the sun’s energy, warming the planet.

So if CO2 is such a potent warming influence, why, during the recent years when there was so much more of it (not really, but I know AGW alarmists, it really wasn’t that big an increase in reality, though since it started from such a minuscule level , even though it is still at a minuscule level, some have been fooled into thinking it was) in the atmosphere, was the warming LESS than it was when there was less CO2 and the warming was GREATER? Seems if CO2 has ANY effect AGW ALARMISTS HAVE IT BACKWARDS because with more CO2 there was less warming and with less CO2 there was more warming!

Then go here:

But let’s compare the claims of the POLITICAL IPCC with the facts presented by the NIPCC:

IPCC: “Risk of death, injury, and disrupted livelihoods in low-lying coastal zones and small island developing states, due to sea-level rise, coastal flooding, and storm surges.”

NIPCC: “Flood frequency and severity in many areas of the world were higher historically during the Little Ice Age and other cool eras than during the twentieth century. Climate change ranks well below other contributors, such as dikes and levee construction, to increased flooding.”

NIPCC: “There is little or no risk of increasing food insecurity due to global warming or rising atmospheric CO2 levels. Farmers and others who depend on rural livelihoods for income are benefitting from rising agricultural productivity throughout the world, including in parts of Asia and Africa where the need for increased food supplies is most critical. Rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels play a key role in the realization of such benefits.

IPCC: “Risk of severe harm for large urban populations due to inland flooding.”

NIPCC: “No changes in precipitation patterns, snow, monsoons, or river flows that might be considered harmful to human well-being or plants or wildlife have been observed that could be attributed to rising CO2 levels. What changes have been observed tend to be beneficial.”

IPCC: “Risk of loss of rural livelihoods and income due to insufficient access to drinking and irrigation water and reduced agricultural productivity, particularly for farmers and pastoralists with minimal capital in semi-arid regions.”

NIPCC: “Higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations benefit plant growth-promoting microorganisms that help land plants overcome drought conditions, a potentially negative aspect of future climate change. Continued atmospheric CO2 enrichment should prove to be a huge benefit to plants by directly enhancing their growth rates and water use efficiencies.”

IPCC: “Systemic risks due to extreme [weather] events leading to breakdown of infrastructure networks and critical services.”

NIPCC: “There is no support for the model-based projection that precipitation in a warming world becomes more variable and intense. In fact, some observational data suggest just the opposite, and provide support for the proposition that precipitation responds more to cyclical variations in solar activity.”

IPCC: “Risk of loss of marine ecosystems and the services they provide for coastal livelihoods, especially for fishing communities in the tropics and the Arctic.”

NIPCC: “There is little or no risk of increasing food insecurity due to global warming or rising atmospheric CO2 levels. Farmers and others who depend on rural livelihoods for income are benefitting from rising agricultural productivity throughout the world, including in parts of Asia and Africa where the need for increased food supplies is most critical. Rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels play a key role in the realization of such benefits.

IPCC: “Risk of severe harm for large urban populations due to inland flooding.”

NIPCC: “No changes in precipitation patterns, snow, monsoons, or river flows that might be considered harmful to human well-being or plants or wildlife have been observed that could be attributed to rising CO2 levels. What changes have been observed tend to be beneficial.”

IPCC: “Risk of loss of rural livelihoods and income due to insufficient access to drinking and irrigation water and reduced agricultural productivity, particularly for farmers and pastoralists with minimal capital in semi-arid regions.”

NIPCC: “Higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations benefit plant growth-promoting microorganisms that help land plants overcome drought conditions, a potentially negative aspect of future climate change. Continued atmospheric CO2 enrichment should prove to be a huge benefit to plants by directly enhancing their growth rates and water use efficiencies.”

IPCC: “Systemic risks due to extreme [weather] events leading to breakdown of infrastructure networks and critical services.”

NIPCC: “There is no support for the model-based projection that precipitation in a warming world becomes more variable and intense. In fact, some observational data suggest just the opposite, and provide support for the proposition that precipitation responds more to cyclical variations in solar activity.”

IPCC: “Risk of loss of marine ecosystems and the services they provide for coastal livelihoods, especially for fishing communities in the tropics and the Arctic.”

So if CO2 is such a potent warming influence, why, during the recent years when there was so much more of it (not really, but I know AGW alarmists, it really wasn’t that big an increase in reality, though since it started from such a minuscule level , even though it is still at a minuscule level, some have been fooled into thinking it was) in the atmosphere, was the warming LESS than it was when there was less CO2 and the warming was GREATER? Seems if CO2 has ANY effect AGW ALARMISTS HAVE IT BACKWARDS because with more CO2 there was less warming and with less CO2 there was more warming!

I showed you mine. Now it’s your turn to show me yours.

What’s the matter Col. Sanders?

CHICKEN?

Dano2
December 29, 2015 at 8:08 AM

Still not speaking to the latest literature on the hiatus, got it.

As It refutes you, I’d do anything to avoid mentioning it too.

Best,

D

DavidAppell
May 12, 2015 at 8:55 PM

Brin: CO2’s effect on heat is different in the atmosphere. There, it absorbs the infrared radiation that is given off by the Earth. It quickly reemits it, and since the orientation of a CO2 molecule in the atmo is random, some of that re-emission goes downward. That warms the surface.

Brin Jenkins
May 13, 2015 at 4:12 AM

A minor gas?

DavidAppell
May 13, 2015 at 4:15 AM

What do you mean by “minor?”
Please be quantative.

DavidAppell
May 13, 2015 at 4:18 AM

Speaking of minor gases, do you know what the concentration of ozone is in the ozone layer?

5 ppmv.

Do you know what you’d be if it wasn’t there?

Dead.

DavidAppell
May 13, 2015 at 4:28 AM

How is CO2 a “minor” gas?

Johnstoirvin
May 15, 2015 at 2:33 PM

CO2 = 0.04% now.

Dano2
May 15, 2015 at 5:44 PM

Congratulations! You’ve just proven medicine is not effective and pHrma is a big scam.

Best,

D

waxliberty
May 21, 2015 at 5:56 PM

I like this video to address this idea that CO2 is too small to have the proposed effect, watch from about 3:20…

In the video, the last guy that said that CO2 takes up 1/10,000th more of earth’s atmosphere than it did before the industrial revolution is closest to being correct.

There is no guesswork involved. It doesn’t come from some slipshod climate models, like CMIP5. It’s a simple straightforward calculation. There was 280ppm of CO2 in the air before the industrial revolution. There is 400ppm today. That’s a 120ppm increase. The correct answer is 1.2/10,000ths.

The reason that the small increase in CO2 hasn’t had the same impact on temperature rise as it does on plant growth is probably because plants are a lot more sensitive to CO2 than is temperature.

waxliberty
August 22, 2015 at 11:34 PM

Interesting that you seem genuinely to have missed the point of the clip entirely.

“There is no guesswork involved… It’s a simple straightforward calculation”

And even more straightforward is the calculation of how many coins I am holding in my hand. What relationship does the ease of measurement have with the significance of the observation?

“The reason that the small increase in CO2 hasn’t had the same impact on temperature”

You appear to be making exactly the fallacious argument the video clip is parodying – “CO2 growth is small, therefore effect on temperature is small.”

In reality, the greenhouse effect runs on trace elements, yet is responsible for keeping the earth a full 33K warmer than it would otherwise be, so physics acknowledges at the outset that trace elements can have outsized impact. The gaps coming out of outgoing longwave are directly observed. The warming of the system is directly observed. Increased humidity as predicted – and therefore the positive water vapor feedback – are all directly observed. Your comment is blithely at odds with the view endorsed by literally every national academy of science in the world. Does your principle #4 about supporting claims with evidence apply to your own claims?

Steve Davidson
August 23, 2015 at 12:19 AM

See previous remarks about getting in the last word.

waxliberty
August 23, 2015 at 12:29 AM

The continuing incredible lack of self-awareness is at least amusing. I think we can conclude that you are not particularly serious and let it go.

BigWaveDave
October 4, 2015 at 11:37 PM

Unfortunately, your statement “In reality, the greenhouse effect runs on trace elements, yet is responsible for keeping the earth a full 33K warmer than it would otherwise be, so physics acknowledges at the outset that trace elements can have outsized impact.” is garbage, and at the heart of your (mis)understanding.

waxliberty
October 5, 2015 at 12:12 AM

Will pick up your greenhouse denial arguments in the other subthread…

VooDude
March 31, 2016 at 10:47 AM

Did you know that the full infrared spectrum of the earth’s long-wave radiation of heat, into space, had never been observed by satellites? NASA says, “Hey, this will be the FIRST…”

“The far infrared includes 50% of the Earth’s infrared energy emitted to space and contains most of the Earth’s water vapor greenhouse effect …As a result, this spectral region dominates the physics of the water vapour feedback in climate but has yet to be observed from space to verify climate model simulations of these processes.”

Huh. Never been done before. 50% … So, exactly, how certain are those climate scientists?

”The effect of clouds in the far infrared also remains unobserved in high-resolution spectra, and radiative transfer model discrepancies have been identified in the limited number of far-infrared measurements that have been made in the presence of clouds (Cox et al. 2010).”

I’m sure it seems very mysterious. Far infrared is observed from the ground though, where you see “measurements agree with radiative transfer model calculations to within their combined uncertainties” (e.g. here), and of course we directly measure that the water vapor is there (humidity) so it’s not like water vapor feedback is a mystery – as you’re well aware it’s extremely well observed.

But okay, it sounds like today’s desperate hope is that although we measure the WV and see the downwelling component, maybe that *doesn’t* mean there is a corresponding outgoing gap, maybe WV molecules aren’t absorbing IR as chemistry says they must, maybe the downwelling is a mirage and the energy is actually escaping, and therefore no water vapor feedback and it’s all been a hoax just like you always said!

Would you like to bet on whether Clarreo will confirm radiative transfer theory and the water vapor feedback or (finally!) overthrow it? I’ll bet $100,000 that it largely confirms it – no major revisions to AGW theory as a result of the measurements. Are you in, VooDude, or just clutching at straws?

Us usual, you are interpreting scientific efforts to close clearly acknowledged uncertainty (and narrow the wide range for climate sensitivity estimate) as evidence that scientists have been *hiding* uncertainty and therefore we can reject their conclusions. This is just another version of the endless game of you coming up with logically invalid reasons for believing what you want to believe. Year after year after year.

Not like the good old days, is it, when there was still hope there wasn’t actually any of that warming they predicted, it was all urban heat islands. Or even the good old days when there was still a “pause” and we were all sure the great global cooling was finally kicking in. Even in extreme rejection of evidence, it’s been one long painful road of reality and physics letting you down. God bless your persistence I suppose.

BigWaveDave
October 3, 2015 at 11:34 PM

The video is an idiotic piece of crap. By what means do you think CO2 affects atmospheric temperature? Can you show any demonstration or cite any peer reviewed paper that proves the assertion that it does?

waxliberty
October 4, 2015 at 2:01 AM

Ah, one of you. We need to name these classes of contrarians. You’re a “causal chains are not valid science” sort of belligerent. A bit sloppy in wording for your class – there are more evasive ways to state this.

“Here we present observationally based evidence of clear-sky CO2 surface radiative forcing that is directly attributable to the increase, between 2000 and 2010, of 22 parts per million atmospheric CO2… The time series both show statistically significant trends of 0.2 W m−2 per decade (with respective uncertainties of ±0.06 W m−2 per decade and ±0.07 W m−2 per decade) … These results confirm theoretical predictions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic emissions, and provide empirical evidence of how rising CO2 levels, mediated by temporal variations due to photosynthesis and respiration, are affecting the surface energy balance.”

BigWaveDave
October 4, 2015 at 5:20 PM

There is no causal chain between CO2 and temperature of Earth’s atmosphere. There is no definition of a greenhouse gas that doesn’t violate the second law of thermodynamics. Believers in the GHG myth don’t even consider diurnal heating.

waxliberty
October 4, 2015 at 8:32 PM

Ah whoops, miscategorized you. You’re “imaginary second law” greenhouse denier class. That’s pretty fringe Dave. Do you also reject the heat retaining properties of blankets as a violation of the 2nd, or you think cooler blankets can literally heat a warmer body?

“The only supporting evidence offered by carbophobes is adjusted readings from a handful of thermometers.”

Not very knowledgeable, are you?

“Satellite measurements of atmospheric temperatures show no CO2 GHG effect”

“There have been 6 occasions since 1970 when a 15-year trend would have failed to reach significance… Any argument about a “pause”, “hiatus”, or “stoppage” could have been made with equal justification (or lack thereof) repeatedly… Taken together, the statistical evidence presented here and elsewhere (Cahill et al. 2015; Foster and Abraham 2015) shows that the “pause” period is comparable in statistical terms with other recent fluctuations… This possibility was explored in a blind test involving professional economists, who were asked specifically to comment on the presence of a pause or hiatus in GMST… but presented as “world agricultural output”… In summary, in two blind tests, experts and novice observers alike consider the evidence of continued global warming to be clear. By contrast, statements endorsing the pause were identified by experts in forecasting and time series analysis to be misleading and at odds with the data”

BigWaveDave
October 4, 2015 at 11:33 PM

So, in other words, you can offer no quantifiable property of CO2 that could explain a change in its concentration causing a measurable atmospheric change for any CO2 concentration change of anthropogenic proportion. Did CO2 cause the apparent step change seen in the late ’90s?

“So, in other words, you can offer no quantifiable property of CO2 that could explain a change in its concentration causing a measurable atmospheric change”

Um, I would “offer” the well-known infrared absorption properties of CO2, which you can verify in your very own lab. Look up two messages in the thread and I provide you a reference to a study showing the direct connection between CO2 concentration and the surface energy balance. The fact that you don’t understand or address something isn’t actually a valid rebuttal – do you really not get how logic works?

“How does this cause that?”

Your implicit reasoning seems to be “CO2 is the only thing that can affect the surface temperature”. Like many shallow assumptions in a complicated world, it just turns out to be a bad assumption.

BigWaveDave
October 5, 2015 at 9:51 PM

No, you show no direct connection, just arm waving about infrared absorption. How do you think that will change temperature enough to measure?

waxliberty
October 5, 2015 at 10:02 PM

Dave, the reference to the Feldman paper above shows a direct change to the surface energy budget. Are you familiar with the basics of climate science, the concept of earth’s energy budget (radiative equilibrium) and forcings measured in terms of watts per square meter of influences on the incoming/outgoing balance of energy on the planet?

Mainstream science is well documented. If you think there is a flaw, why don’t you explain where the flaw is. If you want someone to walk you through the scientific evidence and reasoning, I’d be willing but you’d have to give some indication you are actually interested in learning what the mainstream view is (even if your only intent is to critique it), and as yet I’m not really getting that impression…

The ticket to entry to debating a science topic is being able to summarize the current mainstream view. You are clearly far from understanding that, so there is little room for discussion here. Sorry.

BigWaveDave
February 4, 2016 at 1:02 AM

You can’t explain something that isn’t actually happening, and that is what is wrong with the “GHG” argument from the beginning. The whole thing is based on a lot of fools like yourself who have been given and have accepted a false explanation of how a greenhouse actually works.

waxliberty
February 4, 2016 at 12:53 PM

Ah, greenhouse effect denier. It would be helpful if you guys would just flag which anti-AGW subsect you are members of so we don’t waste time.

Yes Dave, the name “greenhouse” is metaphorical for the effect. It’s embarrassing that you think this is a useful comment. You are probably sufficiently educated to know how fringe your position is on this, and you know what evidence it is that you so hopelessly cannot explain:

* where does all of that downwelling infrared come from?
* why do the changes in outgoing IR that result from changes in atmospheric chemistry exactly match what is predicted from radiative transfer theory when measured from space? etc.)

I’m not one to waste time arguing with your subsect of crankery, the internet has reams of content. The greenhouse effect does not describe “heaters in the sky”, it describes a radiative insulating effect. Insulation is not a violation of the 2nd law. Spare me your sophistry, I won’t respond to it.

“Despite the fact that downwelling IR from the sky can be measured, and amounts to a level (~300 W/m2) that can be scarcely be ignored; the neglect of which would totally screw up weather forecast model runs if it was not included; and would lead to VERY cold nights if it didn’t exist; and can be easily measured directly with a handheld IR thermometer pointed at the sky (because an IR thermometer measures the IR-induced temperature change of the surface of a thermopile, QED)… Please stop the “no greenhouse effect” stuff. It’s making us skeptics look bad.”

My highlight on the “Please stop the “no greenhouse effect” stuff. It’s making us skeptics look bad”. Just wanted to make sure you didn’t miss the fact that you are absolutely making critics of anthropogenic climate change action look very, very bad. Hard to exaggerate how bad this looks to physics literates. Decide how deeply you want to embarrass yourself and the larger anti-AGW movement, and proceed as you wish.

BigWaveDave
February 6, 2016 at 1:03 AM

waxtyranny,

I’ll stop the “no ghg stuff” when Hell freezes over. It is a stupid hypothesis that is an analogy of a misconception of how a greenhouse works. Your attempts at presenting evidence are almost as humorous as your claimed proofs.

Solar energy is stored on Earth in many ways, and released at many rates with varied delay. Just like the IPCC, and many other climate clowns, you have presented no physics to explain how any gas warms Earth’s surface. Just because you can measure the temperature of the sky doesn’t mean the sky is warming the ground. Just look at the temperature you measured.

I am certainly not embarrassed by my attempts to persuade those who have been mislead to look at reality. Fools like yourself are likely beyond hope.

waxliberty
February 6, 2016 at 4:52 PM

Ah Dave, typical of fringe cranks you can’t respond to direct points because it gives away the game, doesn’t it? I clearly said the sky is not warming the ground, that the GHG effect is insulation.

Just to entertain the very small crowd willing to stand around and gawk at the spectacle you like to make of yourself, why don’t you try again to answer some direct questions:

(1) What’s your personal explanation for why the world’s textbooks, physicists, academies and scientific community uniformly disagrees with you on this, even the fringe characters who believe the IPCC is perpetrating a grand conspiracy don’t buy your “alternative physics”. What’s the explanation – conspiracy, contagious madness, or simply a question that your personal IQ is so high that the things you say are right in a way others cannot understand, and so you just sound like you are speaking indulgent gibberish to us?

(2) Since you reject radiative transfer theory (you think the downwelling IR doesn’t represent any energy retained in the system, it is just “the temperature of the sky”), why do you think scientists are able to exactly predict the spectroscopic changes in outgoing IR that result from changes in atmospheric chemistry, like the ongoing increase in global CO2 (now 40% higher than a couple of centuries ago)? Why are there any increasing bites to outgoing IR at all given the greenhouse effect is not really a thing like science says it is?

(3) Do you believe human beings walked on the moon?

(4) Who do you think shot JFK?

(5) Why do you think physicists continue to insist that a perpetual motion machine is impossible when there is in fact so much evidence on the internet that many of these free energy devices have actually been created but the science is being repressed by evil tyrannical governments?

Looking forward to learning from you Dave.

BigWaveDave
February 7, 2016 at 3:11 AM

wax,
I’ll treat each of your questions separately. Here is number 1:

Until recently, text books weren’t corrupted by the “ghg” nonsense. If you do some research you might discover some key figures were responsible, e.g. George Woodwell, Margaret Meade, Stephen Schneider, to name a few, for promoting the “ghg” nonsense, and getting it into curricula and text books starting in the ’70s. It is after all, a progressive, socialist, communist dream; a non-provable subject that can be used to control folks like yourself.

DavidAppell
March 31, 2016 at 2:22 AM

“Until recently, text books weren’t corrupted by the “ghg” nonsense.”

Explain how the Earth’s surface is about 30 C warmer than the sun can make it.

BigWaveDave
March 31, 2016 at 3:25 AM

Explain why you think “Earth’s surface is about 30C warmer than the Sun can make it”. Most likely, you’ve been tricked.

DavidAppell
April 4, 2016 at 6:45 PM

I’m serious: Explain why you think “Earth’s surface is about 30C warmer than the Sun can make it”.

This is Day 1 of the very first class in climate science an undergraduate might take….

(5) You are probably capable of learning, but first you need to figure out what the subject is. Why do the people you claim to be physicists insist there is a greenhouse effect, which is just another form of perpetual motion?

waxliberty
February 8, 2016 at 8:26 PM

(2) is not that hard. flux plotted against wavelength. do you also not believe in Planck curves or something?

As previously noted, claiming the greenhouse effect is “perpetual motion” flags ignorance of subject. There is nothing remotely close to a violation of the 2nd here. Energy flows from the sun, through the earth’s fluid skin and out to space. Slowing the loss to space and increasing the surface temperature is just another valid equilibrium state, with no violation of the 2nd. How is something so simple over your head? Do you also think a blanket “heating” a person sleeping beneath it is a perpetual motion machine? How does an unpowered device heat something, Dave?

NiCuCo
February 6, 2016 at 6:50 PM

“physics to explain how any gas warms Earth’s surface.”

Do your clothes warm your body or just reduce the heat loss? Whatever your answer to that question, with layers of clothing on you are warmer than you would be without them.

Little of the energy coming into the atmosphere (from the Sun) is longwave (infrared). The energy radiated up from the Earth’s surface is all longwave. CO2 absorbs some of that energy, oxygen, nitrogen and argon do not. Much of that absorbed energy is re-radiated, some of it out to space, some of it back to Earth. The amount that goes back to Earth is energy that would have gone to space if not for the CO2 (or another greenhouse gas). This energy makes the Earth’s surface warmer than otherwise.

Whether your clothes warm you or just reduce heat loss, whether the temperature of the atmosphere is greater than or less than the temperature of the surface, greenhouse gases reduce the loss of heat from the Earth’s surface to space.

BigWaveDave
February 7, 2016 at 2:49 AM

Pure nonsense. There is no such reduction in heat loss in the open atmosphere.

BigWaveDave
February 7, 2016 at 3:49 AM

The atmosphere is in no way like layers of clothing. There is no truth to your argument.

jmac
February 9, 2016 at 9:27 AM

Excellent.

jmac
February 9, 2016 at 9:27 AM

#facepalm please try reading on IR and longwave radiation. A simple article in wiki willpedia will most likely suffice to give you some clarity on the topic.

VooDude
March 30, 2016 at 8:06 AM

This really isn’t anything new, except that Tyndall’s brass tube has been replaced by clear sky conditions, and observations limited to very well-edited circumstances. The additional CO2 causes additional interference with infrared radiant heat … The laboratory conditions have been replicated in the sky … but, all the things that a real atmosphere does, were carefully edited out. The outgoing long wave (infrared) radiation is being inhibited by the increased carbon dioxide…

Globally, the earth responds to “climate change” in ways that mitigate the change. Most prominently, earth can modulate the incoming shortwave sunshine by modulating the albedo. About half of the albedo comes from clouds. Just a ½% increase to the processes involved in cloud formation is equal in magnitude to all of “global warming”.

The outgoing long wave (infrared) radiation is being inhibited by the increased carbon dioxide… just like Tyndall’s brass tube.
But, the gases in that tube did not advect, evaporate, condense, or freeze, like a real atmosphere does … and, the conditions under which Feldman took data, avoided the periods where the real atmosphere “did things” over his Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer. That’s why this is just “clear sky” data. In a real world scenario, clouds preferentially form as the surface warms. Not always, and not everywhere, and it isn’t a perfect thermostat …

Unfortunately clouds don’t just have an albedo effect, they also trap infrared in the same way greenhouse gases do. So it is a ‘clear sky’ study to avoid having to adjust for variable cloud cover which would increase the effect. Your response is an elaborate way of saying “but more white clouds could save us”. The available evidence indicates that the cloud feedback effect is likely positive – net addition of more heat-trapping type clouds vs. reflecting type clouds.

E.g. from the IPCC: “The sign of the net radiative feedback due to all cloud types is less certain but likely positive. Uncertainty in the sign and magnitude of the cloud feedback is due primarily to continuing uncertainty in the impact of warming on low clouds”

The idea that cloud feedback acts to keep the climate “naturally regulated” is unfortunately wildly at odds with paleoclimate evidence (the glacial/interglacial changes, for example) which make it clear that the climate does change in respond to forcings – even forcings much smaller than the CO2/methane/black carbon driven anthropogenic forcing dominating today.

”Clouds, along with column water vapor, are the principal control of the surface radiation budget. Clouds simultaneously reduce the amount of shortwave (SW) radiation and increase the amount of longwave (LW) radiation reaching the surface.”

”The sites we consider here are the Southern Great Plains (SGP) site in Oklahoma; the North Slope of Alaska (NSA) site in Pt. Barrow, Alaska; and the Manus Island and Nauru sites in the Tropical Western Pacific (TWP). ”

”The [long-wave, infrared] cloud effect values are a bit more surprising. There is actually very little difference in the values, particularly between the tropical sites and the [Southern Great Plains]. The value in the [Alaska’s North Slope] is larger by only about 10 to 12 W/m^2. As a result, the net cloud effect is dominated by the [short-wave cloud] effect, and is always negative on average.”

Ackerman, Thomas P., and C. N. Long. 2005 “A surface based climatology of irradiance, cloud effect and cloud amount at the ARM sites.” Ninth Symposium on Integrated Observing and Assimilation Systems for the Atmosphere, Oceans, and Land Surface

”We show how clouds provide the necessary degrees of freedom to modulate the Earth’s albedo setting the hemispheric symmetry. We also show that current climate models lack this same degree of hemispheric symmetry and regulation by clouds.”

I assume it’s just “look clouds aren’t modeled entirely correctly!” but will give you a chance to explain why you’ve discovered something far more interesting than that, which *truly* exposes “all the lying scientists and the like” (quoting one of your fellow believers there).

Or your understanding of science is inadequate and you cannot defend your opinions and common beliefs. Science is what separates mere opinion for justified belief in what’s probably true

gnac
May 19, 2015 at 6:16 PM

Heat flows from high to low. If you find a way to concentrate heat without work – let me know – we can both be rich.

DavidAppell
May 20, 2015 at 2:53 PM

So a CO2 molecule that emits an infrared photon downward doesn’t carry heat?

gnac
May 20, 2015 at 4:16 PM

Sure CO2 will release heat. But there is no net direction, it emits heat in all directions around the molecule. Energy will then flow from high concentration to low concentration….the orientation of the molecule is irrelevent.

DavidAppell
May 20, 2015 at 4:53 PM

Some of the heat emitted by CO2 is downward. That *IS* global warming.

DavidAppell
May 20, 2015 at 3:33 PM

“Heat flows from high to low.”

This is a common misconception regarding climate change. *NET* heat flows from high to low. CO2’s heat warms the surface, while the stratosphere gets cooler. And the restrictions of the second law of thermodynamics don’t apply to the Earth, because it is not an isolated system — it exchanges energy with the space around it — incoming energy from the Sun, radiation escaping at the top of the atmosphere.

gnac
May 20, 2015 at 4:12 PM

You are saying you can increase the temperature gradient from the surface of the earth to space by adding ppm levels of CO2? But for the past 20 years the increasing CO2 level has done nothing – paused for some unknown reason!

DavidAppell
May 20, 2015 at 4:54 PM

Don’t you know that the stratosphere cools with CO2-induced surface warming?

Your 20-year claim is flat-out wrong. Examine the data. I have.

gnac
May 20, 2015 at 6:38 PM

Fantastic mechanism!

This is what I hear you saying: Increased CO2 levels in the 100 to 200 ppm range (250 to 400 currently) increase the temperature gradient between the surface and space by both increasing the retention of energy at the surface (as evidenced by higher measured temperatures) AND decreased retention of energy at the interface of the stratosphere and space (a cooler stratosphere).

Where is the link to this fantastic mechanism…..

For your consideration CO2 PPM vs temp over a loooong period of time. Hope AGW is not a religion for you.

DavidAppell
May 20, 2015 at 10:17 PM

“Where is the link to this fantastic mechanism…..”

The link is that the Earth emits infrared radiation, and CO2 absorbs it.

BigWaveDave
February 4, 2016 at 12:50 AM

What you are suggesting is idiotic. The atmospheric density decreases with altitude. There aren’t enough radiators in the sky to warm the surface even if your scenario as possible.

DavidAppell
February 4, 2016 at 1:10 AM

“There aren’t enough radiators in the sky to warm the surface even if your scenario as possible.”

Prove this claim. With physics.

BigWaveDave
February 4, 2016 at 1:37 AM

You were asked to prove yours first, and since you have a physics degree, it should be easy for you to do without needing any outside sources. Have at it. Please show us a heat and mass balance explaining how sky radiators heat the planet.

As for proving mine, I had to turn the heater on, because I couldn’t rely on radiation from the 0.06% of atmospheric mass that is CO2, warming the rest of the air.

DavidAppell
February 4, 2016 at 1:40 AM

You made a claim: “There aren’t enough radiators in the sky to warm the surface even if your scenario as possible.”

Now it’s clear you can’t prove that claim. Hence, it’s time to withdraw it.

“As for proving mine, I had to turn the heater on, because I couldn’t rely on radiation from the 0.06% of atmospheric mass that is CO2, warming the rest of the air.”

Is your room a hundred kilometers high?

DavidAppell
February 4, 2016 at 1:50 AM

“Please show us a heat and mass balance explaining how sky radiators heat the planet.”

You’re wrong from the very start — it isn’t about mass balance, it’s about the radiative transfer of electromagnetic energy.

TienBing
February 4, 2016 at 1:28 PM

If your feet are cold – a solution is warm socks. Only to a leftist twit is that a political decision.

DavidAppell
February 8, 2016 at 6:06 PM

You completely avoided the question…. I think I know why.

BigWaveDave
February 6, 2016 at 1:05 AM

Yes, climate clowns ignore mass. It is a big part of their miseducation.

DavidAppell
February 8, 2016 at 6:01 PM

Show me where anyone ignores mass. I dare you.

Q: How does transfer of heat via mass changes compare to heat transfer from radiative physics?

DavidAppell
February 4, 2016 at 1:12 AM

PS: Why do you think the Earth’s surface temperature is about 60 deg F more than the Sun can account for?

BigWaveDave
February 4, 2016 at 2:03 AM

The sun warms the land surface, atmosphere and oceans on the day side of the Earth .It is the source of particularly stupid and annoying comments like we would supposedly freeze without GHGs.

The sun warms much of the land to more than 100 F. It cools to below that at night, before it warms again.

The oceans are nearly perfect solar collectors that store most of what they receive from the sun, and redistribute that energy to parts of the planet not heated directly. Ocean currents transport sensible heat, and ocean evaporation seeds the atmosphere with latent heat in water vapor. Solar energy is also stored in and transported by biomass both in the oceans and on land, and later released, often in another location.

The oceans thermal inertia dwarfs that of the atmosphere and surface.

BigWaveDave
February 4, 2016 at 2:06 AM

Correction to second sentence. Th “60 deg F more than the Sun can account for” is the source of particularly stupid and annoying comments like we would supposedly freeze without GHGs.

Concerned
May 15, 2015 at 6:56 PM

Dano2, your first statement “may” be true, but for different reasons that you are implying. Without CO2, plants cannot grow and without plants, there would be a severe shortage of Oxygen and water vapor as we experience on earth.
I know that my 10th and 11th grade science and physics did not address the causes of global warming and global cooling nor the facts that this occurs in yearly, 11 yr, 22 year, 40yr, 60yr, 100 yr, and 206 year cycles. It is very difficult to find any CO2 cycles that match this, but solar cycles combined with PDO and AMO cycles (caused by the sun) do match this.
An article by Timothy Casey B.Sc. (Hons.) First Uploaded ISO: Oct. 13, 2009 addresses many of these issues in his arcticle titled: “The Shattered Greenhouse: How Simple Physics Demolishes the “Greenhouse Effect”.

Dano2
May 15, 2015 at 7:01 PM

What do plants have to do with the heat-trapping properties of GHGs? Besides nothing, I mean.

The most potent greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is water vapor. Also the most common. Without CO2 the H2O would still be up there providing 90%+ of the greenhouse effect, maybe it would even take up the slack caused by the loss of CO2, but the fact is the level of CO2 didn’t have to fall much more before plants would start dying due to the lack, so it’s probably a good thing it’s going up and giving us a larger safety margin.

In times past the CO2 was 4,000 to 5,000 times greater, and yet we had a major glaciation!

Dano2
December 28, 2015 at 3:34 PM

the level of CO2 didn’t have to fall much more before plants would start dying due to the lack,

I prefer the the lecture given by the esteemed Nobel prize winning Climate Scientist supremo Al Gore, An Inconvenient Truth where AL shows how CO2 drives temperature throughout the history of the Earth. 😉 QED

DavidAppell
May 15, 2015 at 9:23 PM

Really? Ever hear of the PETM?

Mary Brown
May 14, 2015 at 10:02 AM

There is essentially no debate over the warming properties of CO2 in the atmosphere. We (climate scientists) argue over “how much” and “how bad”.

Brin Jenkins
May 14, 2015 at 10:47 AM

Mary please explain the mechanism.

Ryder
May 15, 2015 at 8:40 PM

But that is a false argument. CO2 is NOT the primary warming gas used in the models. Water is… as clouds/vapor. Climate scientists, so far as I am given to understand… have nothing close to a definitive answer with respect to the effects of atmospheric wateras clouds or vapor… and as the models are constructed to deliver about 2/3rds of warming directly from this poorly understood water (and NOT CO2), then this is obviously the bigger issue.

If the total forcing from clouds or vapor is not well understood, and we can’t even say for sure if the feedback is positive or negative… then obviously “the science” on this matter is not understood well enough.

And no self-respecting scientist would be asking “how bad” with respect to warming. That’s a subjective assessment. It indicates bias… and has no place here.

And yet the models assign 2/3rds of climate change to it… then (some) scientists hide behind the comparatively minor understanding of CO2, and water never even comes up.

It’s called dodging.

And no self respecting scientist should be doing it.

Voodude
May 18, 2015 at 12:18 PM

What are the climate models missing? Lots. They are wrong on the Carbon Cycle, ENSO, and especially, CLOUDS…

”… an adequate description of basic processes like cloud formation, moist convection, and mixing is what climate models miss most.”

”Yet, it has had relatively little impact on key uncertainties that emerged in early studies with less comprehensive models (6). These uncertainties include the equilibrium climate sensitivity (that is, the global warming associated with a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide), arctic amplification of temperature changes, and regional precipitation responses. Rather than reducing biases stemming from an inadequate representation of basic processes, additional complexity has multiplied the ways in which these biases introduce uncertainties in climate simulations”

”There is now ample evidence that an inadequate representation of clouds and moist convection, or more generally the coupling between atmospheric water and circulation, is the main limitation in current representations of the climate system. … this limitation constitutes a major roadblock to progress in climate science”

”Differences among the simulations … are especially evident in the tropics, where the sign of cloud changes and the spatial structure of the precipitation response differ fundamentally between models.”

”the coupling between water and circulation is disproportionately dependent on the representation of unresolved processes, such as moist convection and cloud formation”

Don,t worry Brown is a sold out Kike, pushing the Zionist Agenda, they are soon to be delegated to History!

Nuke Pro
May 18, 2015 at 4:11 AM

Mary, please weigh in on this.
The absorption of the radiation from the surface by the CO2 of the air is nearly saturated. Measuring
with a spectrometer what is left from the radiation of a broadband
infrared source (say a black body heated at 1000°C) after crossing the
equivalent of some tens or hundreds of meters of the air, shows that the
main CO2 bands (4.3 µm and 15 µm) have been replaced by the emission spectrum of the CO2 which is radiated at the temperature of the trace-gas

Voodude
May 18, 2015 at 12:15 PM

The gases in Tyndall’s brass tube didn’t convect, advect, evaporate, condense, or freeze, as things do in a real atmosphere. Tyndall measured the infrared opacity of the gases… he made no attempt to measure how water vapour acts to thermostatically regulate planet earth, through clouds and thunderstorms, irrespective of the infrared absorption properties that it has. Arrhenius made the claims. Niels Bohr told Arrhenius that he was all wrong.

Clouds thermostatically regulate the earth.

Haut
August 23, 2015 at 7:22 AM

Your an Idiot, & A kike, SFO

Scarlet LeMay
September 1, 2015 at 6:59 AM

Haut. Now , now, no reason for name calling!

Haut
August 23, 2015 at 7:25 AM

Yea your an Idiot, & A Kike SFO

Haut
September 1, 2015 at 8:17 AM

How much do you get paid to sell out AS?

Robert
May 17, 2015 at 11:32 AM

Where?
“I have looked ”

Robert
May 18, 2015 at 10:52 AM

” I have looked and can see no way in which CO2 is responsible.”

Where have you been looking?

Concerned
May 15, 2015 at 6:45 PM

Yes your statement is correct, but Svante Arrhenius’s 1896 hypothesis (based Fourier and on Pouillet’s idea) was refutted by Robert Wood in 1909. There is NO clear thermodynamic definition of the “Greenhouse Effect” for our earth.
There is no argument that incoming radiation + heat generation by earth must be balanced with the outgoing radiation to maintain a stable temperature on earth. But how this is achieved is the big question that is not clearly understood.
Of the “greenhouse gases” in the atmosphere, the 0.5% to 3% of water vapor (and clouds) has a much larger effect on earth’s temperature than the 0.04% contributed by CO2.
See attachments:

Dano2
May 15, 2015 at 7:00 PM

Whoa. Your offhand comment on an obscure blog, today, has just overturned a century and a half of fizzix, and textbooks all over the worrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrld will have to be recalled and re-written!

Robert,
Thanks for the link, I was not aware of the dialog presented and I found it interesting. However, in the end, it appears there is still a lot of disagreement on this subject and the Greenhouse Effect for earth appears to be dramatically different than a Greenhouse on earth. Our scientists seem to be struggling to come up with an accurate thermodynamic model for earth as it applies to the Greenhouse Effect.

Robert
May 19, 2015 at 1:18 PM

Part of the problem is the ‘greenhouse effect’ is an analogy. Trying to disprove how GHGs work in the atmosphere by showing that a greenhouse works differently isn’t really an argument.

I’m not sure how accurate your last sentence is. Perhaps you can point to something supporting your assertion.

Concerned
May 19, 2015 at 2:33 PM

After reading multiple articles on this, I find all of them interesting and clearly a number of these are just wrong. However, three interesting reads are as follows:
1. Timothy Casey B.Sc.(Hons.) Revision 5 ISO: Dec2011:
“The Shattered Greenhouse: How Simple Physics Demolishes the Greenhouse Effect.”
2. Douglas J. Cotton B. Sc (Physics), B.A. (Econ):
“Why Its NOT Carbon Dioxide After All.”
3. Claes Johnson “Computational Blackbody Radiation”
Attached are two different representations of Earth’s Energy Budget from two different sources.
New paper published (Ballab Kattel,Tandong Yao, Wei Yang, Yang Gao, Lide Tian) in the International Journal of Climatology analyzes the temperature lapse rates of the Himalayas over the past 20 years. This shows exactly what the 33C Maxwell/Carnot/Clausius atmospheric mass/gravity/pressure theory of the greenhouse effect predicts: Per the lapse rate equation: dT/dh = -g/Cp. These are the equations used by NASA for predicting temperatures at various altitudes for space exploration for all planets.

Robert
May 19, 2015 at 2:56 PM

There becomes a point where it is no longer necessary to look at the contrarian science and just do what your 6th grade librarian tried to teach; Resource Evaluation.

There are multiple reasons why the arguments from the contrarians / fake skeptics / deniers / et al are only published in journals with impact factors hovering around 1 or are newspaper editorials or are claims about bad physics being posted on comment threads.

Being in the semiconductor industry, things are always changing and as a result, things that were “facts” 5 years ago are no longer facts ended up being just someone’s opinions. In truth, many times we do not know WHO is the real Authority, was it Niels Bohr or Albert Einstein? To me, science is the search for truth and I have difficulty calling people fake skeptics or deniers unless I can understand the facts associated with their research and associated claims. Scientists have the right to do their research and as the facts change, they have the right to change their minds.

Recently I became aware of work by Jose, Landscheidt, & Charvatova posted by Geoff Sharp regarding the sun:(http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/216) tied to Angular Momentum Theory (AMT) discussing the Modulating Force and the Disruptive Force challenging Leif Svalgaard. However, both parties have very compelling information that states that our sun is driver for the global warming and global cooling and not CO2 as we have been told. CO2 “might be” a minor factor. The information maps to history as well as predicting the future along with the current pause in GW. All parties are well published in reputable journals.

Robert
May 19, 2015 at 4:37 PM

There is a huge body of scientific literature; some is published in journals that are very consistently showing the best of science and original research, some published in journals that don’t. The majority are solid; they have reputations to keep, and the papers show that in how they impact further research.

And while there may be a range of opinion on various aspects of the wide range of fields encompassing ACC, there is that solid, very large, body of research that is very clear.

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed
changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have
warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the
concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased (see Figures SPM.1, SPM.2, SPM.3 and
SPM.4). {2.2, 2.4, 3.2, 3.7, 4.2–4.7, 5.2, 5.3, 5.5–5.6, 6.2, 13.2}

And

Total radiative forcing is positive, and has led to an uptake of energy by the climate system.
The largest contribution to total radiative forcing is caused by the increase in the atmospheric
concentration of CO2 since 1750 (see Figure SPM.5). {3.2, Box 3.1, 8.3, 8.5}

and

Human influence on the climate system is clear. This is evident from the increasing greenhouse
gas concentrations in the atmosphere, positive radiative forcing, observed warming, and
understanding of the climate system. {2–14}

IPCC SPM AR5

Again, you can find something out there to fit to most any opinion – that’s why we have conspiracy theorists and people claiming that the physics being taught is wrong – but rational people don’t need to be experts in a highly specialized field to have the capability to sort out the wheat from the chaff. After all, middleschool kids get it:

EVALUATING WEBSITES AND ONLINE INFORMATION FOR MIDDLE SCHOOL
STUDENTS AND TEACHERS

Concerned
May 20, 2015 at 7:14 PM

Yes, Robert, I have read the entire IPCC report and find glaring problems. That is why I elect to read both sides of a discussion. As admitted by the head of the IPCC, the report was written to support political reasons and for governments; as a result, it has a lot of difficulty in substantiating many of the claims:
Closed minds seldom contribute to our learning and that of our society. Nearly every claim (snow cover, tornado’s, ocean temperatures, amounts of snow, ice) can be refuted by factual data: (much of the data shown comes from NOAA, government agencies, universities, and other reputable scientists.) Clearly, there are many opinions and hypotheses, just a science should proceed. If one piece of data invalidates the hypothesis, that hypothesis fails and needs to be redone.
Out of the 79 or 121 AGW models, not a single model matches the measured results. This tells us “we have a problem with the models.” Even sea level rise has multiple problems.

Robert
May 21, 2015 at 10:26 AM

And no examples?

” ….read the entire IPCC report and find glaring problems. “

Robert
May 21, 2015 at 1:28 PM

Source?

“…admitted by the head of the IPCC, the report was written to support political reasons..”

Concerned
May 21, 2015 at 5:40 PM

This was reported when Mr. Pachauri announced he was stepping down. (Rajendra Kumar Pachauri)

Despite abundant and obvious counter-evidence, the so-called global warming alarmists cling to their little theory. For them, it’s not about facts. It’s about faith.

Rajendra Kumar Pachauri admits as much. He chaired the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Vatican of Warmism. Pachauri quit the IPCC Tuesday amid sexual harassment charges. “For me the protection of Planet Earth, the survival of all species and sustainability of our ecosystems is [sic] more than a mission,” his resignation letter stated. “It is my religion and my dharma.”

Prior to the 27 Sept. 2013 report release he was asked: now that the science is now so certain, and asked whether it might not be a better use of resources to focus on specific regions or extreme weather events”

Pachauri said the IPCC would discuss those suggestions at a meeting in Batumi, Georgia, next month. But he said the final decision on the IPCC’s mission, and the future of the blockbuster climate reports, would rest with governments.

“We are an intergovernmental body and we do what the governments of the world want us to do,” he said. “If the governments decide we should do things differently and come up with a vastly different set of products we would be at their beck and call.”

Note “my” . Not ‘our’. He was speaking to his personal beliefs. And you tried to make it some official policy statement.

Government asking , possibly, for a different ‘product’. Not changing the reported results.

Basically, your claims fid under Agenda21.

Concerned
May 21, 2015 at 7:23 PM

We just read the facts as stated by that person. As a person in high office (just like our President), when he makes these statements, it is for the UN and IPCC, not just for him.
We understand where you are coming from. Now are you personally in favor of the U.S. paying >$100B to China, India, and “the other undeveloped countries of the world” promised by the developed Western countries who have polluted our atmosphere with CO2 by historical burning of fossil fuels?

Robert
May 22, 2015 at 10:14 AM

“My.” Not “our”.

Robert
May 22, 2015 at 10:16 AM

” developed Western countries who have polluted our atmosphere with CO2 by historical burning of fossil fuels?”

Thank you for acknowledgeing that.

Concerned
May 26, 2015 at 10:19 PM

As you well know, more than 50% of CO2 in our atmosphere comes from the oceans. Yes, humans burn fossil fuels for various reasons, but very little CO2 (<4% of the total) comes from humans.

Robert
May 27, 2015 at 12:33 AM

Account for the rise from 280 to 400.

Concerned
May 27, 2015 at 12:32 PM

Yes, as we know, for the greenhouse gases, water vapor is about 0.8% and CO2 accounts for approximately 0.04% of our atmosphere and humans contribute about 4% of this CO2 0.04%. That is why the numbers are measured in parts per million (ppm). 400 PPM = 0.0004 total (or 0.04% as shown). No arguments and includes facts. Nearly all historical records show that increases in CO2 are preceded by an increase in temperature by at least 1 year. Today, people are attempting to identify what causes the temperature increase (or decrease) so that adequate planning is in place.

Everyone knows that warming of the oceans (by any means) causes more CO2 to be released by the oceans. Therefore, both the oceans and man contribute to the 400 PPM. Separating how much is from man and how much is from the ocean is very difficult, but some people have attempted. But clearly CO2 is rising. Likewise, if the oceans begin to cool, the atmospheric CO2 will drop to lower levels due to ocean effects.
However, the fundamental question is “how much is too much CO2?” If there are no known catastrophic affects, then 400 PPM is very good for man due to the increased productivity in agriculture. A warm atmosphere has been much more beneficial to man than cold periods.

Atmospheric CO2 levels fluctuate from about 185 parts-per-million (ppm), during ice ages, to around 280 ppm, during warmer periods like today (termed interglacials). The oceans currently contain approximately sixty times more carbon than the atmosphere and that carbon can exchange rapidly (from a geological perspective) between these two systems (atmosphere-ocean).

Co-author Dr. Gavin Foster from the University of Southampton commented: “Just like the way the oceans have stored around 30 per cent of humanity’s fossil fuel emissions over the last 100 years or so, our new data confirms that natural variations in atmospheric CO2 between ice ages and warm interglacials are driven largely by changes in the amount of carbon stored in our oceans.

Robert
May 27, 2015 at 1:32 PM

“historical records show that”

That would be a great place for a footnote. .

Concerned
May 29, 2015 at 3:51 PM

Both recent (last 35 years) “historical” data and 50,000 year “historical” data show that CO2 lags temperature. No foot-note required since this is already published information and you can see the plots.

Robert
May 29, 2015 at 4:36 PM

A couple of sources with footnotes because the issue is a wee bit more complex than you are attempting to prove:

Yes, I read both of your “biased” reference sites on a regular basis. As with me, most of their information relies on the research and publishing of others. Sometimes their information is good; however, quite often the information is dated (2003, 2007, 2009, 2010) and misleading, often it presents hypotheses that are presented as “I believe” or “we think”, but not solid data showing cause and effect. By the way, those are not my graphs, they are graphs of the authors / publishers done under peer-review. Also, I usually find information that refutes what skepticalscience presents, so those doing the refuting can also throw around comments like “some solid science!”
However, I have not seen the recent near-term (35 year) temp-CO2 data (shown in attachment) as being refuted. Following are some other interesting links along with their references:http://www.thegwpf.com/paper-carbon-dioxide-lags-global-temperature/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2012.08.008http://patch.com/georgia/athens/bp–man-made-global-warming-settled-science-00bcd6ce

Robert
May 29, 2015 at 5:37 PM

W. Pauli comes to mind….
“However, I have not seen the recent near-term (35 year) temp-CO2 data (shown in attachment) as being refuted.”

Concerned
May 29, 2015 at 8:22 PM

Guess we are both familiar with Wolfgang Pauli, electron spin and the exclusion principle, but he might have a problem with CO2.

Robert
May 29, 2015 at 8:35 PM

There’s a rather famous quote…..

Concerned
June 1, 2015 at 1:24 PM

Yes, it is well-known, but there are only a few people in this world who are qualified to use that quote. However, very few people are aware of some of his additional quotes, some of which are more applicable to this discussion: “I don’t mind your thinking slowly; I mind your publishing faster than you think.”

Robert
June 1, 2015 at 6:29 PM

Yeah, that one works in this instance also.

Robert
May 27, 2015 at 1:33 PM

Numbers?

“Therefore, both the oceans and man contribute to the 400 PPM”

Concerned
May 29, 2015 at 3:42 PM

This has to be the case since both oceans and forests helped establish the 285 ppm level before we claim that man is responsible. What are your numbers? I am referencing one recent study out of Norway and linked (below) their plot of actual data:
“The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature”
Ole Humlum a, b, Kjell Stordahl c, Jan-Erik Solheim d
a Department of Geosciences, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1047 Blindern, N-0316 Oslo, Norway
b Department of Geology, University Centre in Svalbard (UNIS), P.O. Box 156, N-9171 Longyearbyen, Svalbard, Norway
c Telenor Norway, Finance, N-1331 Fornebu, Norway
d Department of Physics and Technology, University of Tromsø, N-9037 Tromsø, Norway

This data shows two methods of comparing against the governmental established databases and represent relatively short-term changes. The long-term (100K year) lead/lag characterizations are controversial.

Robert
May 29, 2015 at 4:45 PM

“This has to be the case since both oceans and forests helped establish the 285 ppm level before we claim that man is responsible.”
And you brought forward no data that supports a contention that either has changed levels of input. We do have that pesky isotope though…..

Robert
May 22, 2015 at 10:18 AM

Your research is where?
“The reason is that it is controlled by the sun and is part of the earth’s natural events.”

Concerned
May 26, 2015 at 10:51 PM

Where is your research?
As you well know, I am not involved in solar research; however, it is my assumption that you are requesting references. My research involves reading various papers while high-lighting pro’s and con’s of each. Unfortunately the database is extremely large and cannot be addressed with this message. With 100’s (or thousands) of researchers and scientists, it is difficult to link all variations. However, research relative to the solar effects to our climate occur in nearly every large industrialized country including Germany, the U.S. (NASA), Russia (Russian Academy of Sciences and Pulkovo Observatory, St.Petersburg), Australia, Denmark, U.K., China, India, Japan, etc.
Recently (5/22/2015) Former UN Lead Author: Global Warming Caused By ‘Natural Variations’ In Climate — Dr. Philip Lloyd, a South Africa-based physicist
and climate researcher, examined ice core-based temperature data going back 8,000 years.
Good articles by Habibullo Abdussamatov (solar TSI belo) http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/12/04/new-paper-russian-solar-physicist-by-habibullo-abdussamatov-predicts-another-little-ice-age-within-the-next-30-years/
Interesting articles by Dr. Theodor Landscheidt:(planetary effects on sun and Gleissberg maxima and Minimum): http://www.schulphysik.de/klima/landscheidt/iceage.htm
Most recent (May 22, 2015) is: “A simulated lagged response of the north atlantic oscillation to the solar cycle over the period 1960–2009.” by M.B. Andrews1, J.R. Knight1, & L.J. Gray2
1 Hadley Centre, Met Office, Exeter, EX1 3PB,UK
2 NCAS-Climate, Department of Physics, Oxford University, Oxford,UK.
Most of the referenced articles have multiple references associated with them along with peer-reviewed publications.

Robert
May 27, 2015 at 12:32 AM

Now take their numbers and compare them to the research cited in AR5. Why are you taking less than a handful of papers, papers virtually only cited in a handful of contrarian blogs, and telling us that they overpower the work done by the IPCC?

Start with how your papers move the solar bar so far in figure 5 SPM wg1 AR5 to overpower the forcing of co2.

Concerned
May 27, 2015 at 10:52 AM

Unfortunately, AR5 is not the reference point. It is only in the past 5 years or so that people are even looking seriously at the various solar affects and solar numbers as being the primary cause for climate change. The teams that are proposing solar as being the main cause for both warming and cooling have shown better matching to reality than the myriad of IPCC cited models.

Robert
May 27, 2015 at 10:56 AM

Tell us why you think “Unfortunately, AR5 is not the reference point.”

Robert
May 27, 2015 at 11:05 AM

” It is only in the past 5 years or so that people are even looking seriously at the various solar affects and solar numbers as being the primary cause for climate change. ”

No, there is similar data on each of the other topics, but if you don’t accept this, then why send any additional info? Where is your information and related source outside the IPCC?
Attached are three charts from Rutgers University (using the information from the NOAA and the National weather Service) for snow anomalies and snow cover departure from mean for the North America and for the Northern Hemisphere.
You can find this same information on Google Search.

Robert
May 21, 2015 at 1:30 PM

Source?

“Out of the 79 or 121 AGW models, not a single model matches the measured results. “

Concerned
May 21, 2015 at 2:29 PM

How many different climate models really exist?? However, as the errors are better understood, the people managing these models continue to update. But if the models do not contain the effects of the sun, the clouds, or moisture content in the atmosphere, they are bound to fail.

However, one summary (see attachment) comes from Dr. Spencer: Roy W. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites.

Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil.

Dr. Spencer’s first popular book on global warming, “Climate Confusion” (Encounter Books), is available at Amazon.com and BarnesAndNoble.com.

Robert
May 21, 2015 at 3:25 PM

So, no source for your assertion. ..

Concerned
May 21, 2015 at 3:30 PM

Your opinion is yours, but as you can see from his brief resume’, Dr. Spencer is one of the most qualified persons in the world to provide comments on this subject.

Voodude
May 19, 2015 at 5:01 AM

Dano2: “the chemistry of fossil fuel carbon in the atmosphere was completed in the 1970s…”
…and lots of papers have come out, since then, saying that the “carbon cycle” didn’t include this, or is off by half on that, or in some cases, is off by an order of magnitude on something else… Just on the carbon cycle, alone, is enough documented error (pertaining to CMIP5 GCMs) to trash the whole “global warming” theory. … let alone, other errors, like ENSO, or clouds.

Voodude
May 19, 2015 at 5:08 AM

Way back in 1938, Callendar observed that clouds compensate for warmth, keeping the earth in a reasonable balance… “On the earth the supply of water vapour is unlimited over the greater part of the surface, and the actual mean temperature results from a balance reached between the solar “constant” and the properties of water and air. Thus a change of water vapour, sky radiation and temperature is corrected by a change of cloudiness and atmospheric circulation, the former increasing the reflection loss and thus reducing the effective sun heat.”

Callendar, Guy Stewart. “The artificial production of carbon dioxide and its influence on temperature.” Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 64.275 (1938): 223-240. PDF copy is here.

Obama won a Nobel prize , so a Nobel does not say anything about credibility . The earth tilts significantly every 2000 years . The axis points towards the next constellation. I learned this at college in Asronomy 101.This is the reason for ocean fossils being found in the Sahara desert and woolly mammoth’s digestive systems, that were found in arctic regions, are filled with tropical vegetation. There are certain natural occurrences that mankind will never be able to prevent.Unfortunately, there are many people who run around playing God that use nature as an excuse to tell populations how to live through rules and regulations.

BigWaveDave
February 4, 2016 at 12:40 AM

Of course you don’t realize that the error in the GHG hypothesis is in the incorrect understanding of how a greenhouse works.

To accept it still, allows you great latitude in your attribution of cause. It is a lot like belief in witchcraft, and we all know what sorts of trouble witches can cause, don’t we?

Dano2
February 4, 2016 at 7:35 AM

What keeps all the heat from escaping at night and earth becoming a frozen ice bsll? Fairies flying around with blankets?

Best,

D

BigWaveDave
February 4, 2016 at 5:20 PM

The oceans and water vapor condensation keep us warm at night.

Dano2
February 4, 2016 at 5:40 PM

Snicker

Best,

D

BigWaveDave
February 7, 2016 at 3:23 AM

That’s why you remain so dumb.

Dano2
February 7, 2016 at 9:56 AM

Says the guy avoiding greenhouse gases in the atmosphere keep the planet warm.

Best,

D

BigWaveDave
March 28, 2016 at 5:50 AM

I’m not avoiding “greenhouse gasses”. That isn’t necessary, because no one has ever shown such a thing exists.

Dano2
March 28, 2016 at 7:57 AM

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

I LOLzed!

Best,

D

DavidAppell
March 31, 2016 at 2:21 AM

“I’m not avoiding “greenhouse gasses”. That isn’t necessary, because no one has ever shown such a thing exists.”

After absorption they re-radiate IR in a random direction, some of which goes downward.

(It’s shameful you don’t know this 7th grade science.)

BigWaveDave
April 6, 2016 at 11:56 PM

So,in 7th grade you were told “After absorption [GHGs] re-radiate IR in a random direction, some of which goes downward.”, and you believed it, but this doesn’t address the question of how this affects the surface temperature, does it?

DavidAppell
April 7, 2016 at 5:40 PM

A surface that absorbs more IR gets warmer. This is physics 101.

Seriously, have you ever read a SINGLE book about global warming?

BigWaveDave
April 7, 2016 at 7:14 PM

Have you ever read any books on heat transfer? The atmosphere is cooler than the surface. Explain exactly how and by how much CO2 in the atmosphere can warm the surface. Seriously, you haven’t a clue.

DavidAppell
April 7, 2016 at 7:58 PM

“The atmosphere is cooler than the surface.”

Have you ever heard of the second law of thermodynamics?

Really, you, a total amateur, think 100+ years of physicists somehow got this wrong? That’s preposterous.

BigWaveDave
April 7, 2016 at 9:59 PM

I’m quite familiar with 2LoT. 100+ years of physicists didn’t get it wrong, but Arrhenius didn’t understand how a greenhouse works, and neither do you.

DavidAppell
April 7, 2016 at 10:10 PM

The Earth is not a “greenhouse” in the same sense as we mean by constructed “greenhouses” today, which are very artificial environments.

It’s astounding to me that you think you understand the 2LOT better than 100+ years of the entire physics community. Talk about hubris.

BigWaveDave
April 7, 2016 at 10:22 PM

So fay, you have failed to answer the questions of exactly how and how much CO2 warms Earth’s surface. You provide only simplistic group think sound bites. Are you a computer program or just a troll?

DavidAppell
April 7, 2016 at 10:34 PM

I have answered both — CO2 warms by redirecting upwelling IR down towards the ground.

It’s not my fault if you can’t understand that.

Have you ever taken a course in physics, per chance? Even in high school?

BigWaveDave
April 7, 2016 at 11:32 PM

You have answered neither, You keep repeating the mistaken explanation of how a greenhouse was once thought to work.

How does CO2 redirect IR? How is the redirected IR able to warm a warmer surface? How much IR warming per CO2 increment should its redirected cause?

You then ask if I have taken a course in Physics. Yes, many.

Are you still in 7th grade?

DavidAppell
April 7, 2016 at 11:48 PM

CO2 redirects IR by absorbing upwelling IR, then re-radiating it in a random direction.

Some of that re-radiation is downward, striking the surface, warming it.

This is Climate 101.

BigWaveDave
April 8, 2016 at 12:22 AM

It is also nonsense!

DavidAppell
April 8, 2016 at 12:38 AM

Why is it “nonsense?” In your expert opinion….

DavidAppell
April 8, 2016 at 1:44 AM

Why is it “nonsense?”

BigWaveDave
April 8, 2016 at 3:08 AM

Because it isn’t why the surface temperature is warmer than calculated Stephan-Bolzman equilibrium temperature with (Solar insolation)/4. and nobody can offer a valid physical explanation of how and by how much CO2 causes surface warming.

The simplistic “(1-a)S/4 = epsilon*sigma*T^4” misses how hot the surface of land, rocks, buildings get during the day.

The temperature predicted by the simplistic “(1-a)S/4 = epsilon*sigma*T^4” presumes equilibrium under conditions not present. There is not only no equilibrium, there isn’t even a steady state. Solar energy received by the Earth varies, and is released at varying times ranging from instantaneous to thousands of years.

The “average surface temperature” is a meaningless value that ignores heat.

DavidAppell
April 12, 2016 at 11:26 PM

The Earth is a blackbody in the frequencies that count, the IR.

BigWaveDave
April 13, 2016 at 2:50 AM

No, the oceans definitely aren’t anything like a black body, or even a grey body, and they cover over 70% of the surface.
The ocean surface temperature is not a function of energy entering or leaving it is a function of vapor pressure. In the low latitudes, water vapor drives convection and transports heat to the upper troposphere.
This applies to some extent to land areas, also.

Surface cooling by radiation (the kind of cooling that relies on grey body or black body temperature) is only about 11% of the cooling. The rest is by evaporation and convection/advection.

DavidAppell
April 13, 2016 at 11:06 PM

“No, the oceans definitely aren’t anything like a black body, or even a grey body, and they cover over 70% of the surface.”

To a good first approximation, the Earth is a blackbody in the infrared. It certainly radiates as a blackbody. For detailed calculations one abandons this simplistic assumption and solves the two-stream equations, which are general.

BigWaveDave
April 14, 2016 at 11:54 PM

What do you mean by “It certainly radiates as a blackbody”? How would it radiate if it were a grey body?

Is radiation the only form of heat transfer you are aware of?

DavidAppell
April 15, 2016 at 12:55 AM

“How would it radiate if it were a grey body?”

You should know the answer to that, if you know what a grey body is.

Time to call up on your great knowledge of physics….

BigWaveDave
April 15, 2016 at 7:11 AM

Non responsive, as usual.

BigWaveDave
April 17, 2016 at 7:00 AM

Time for you to answer a question.

DavidAppell
April 17, 2016 at 12:39 PM

The answer you’re trying to find is: Yes, grey bodies radiate.

BigWaveDave
April 17, 2016 at 4:09 PM

Can a grey body can radiate the same as a black body that is at some temperature lower than the temperature of the grey body?

DavidAppell
April 13, 2016 at 11:07 PM

“Surface cooling by radiation (the kind of cooling that relies on grey body or black body temperature) is only about 11% of the cooling. The rest is by evaporation and convection/advection.”

Instead of countering you on the physics again and again, I’m far more interested in this question: how is it you think you are right and 10s of thousands of scientists over the last century+ are wrong?

How did you reach that point?

BigWaveDave
April 13, 2016 at 5:58 PM

You haven’t countered anything yet.
Science wasn’t always as corrupted as what apparently passes for science to you.

I was first introduced to the “CO2 is a greenhouse gas” by my Biology professor, in the early ’70s. I asked “how” then, and regularly since. Still no answer.

The nonsense has been fueled by authoritarians of all stripes eager to seize the opportunity to tax, and willing to dole money to compliant useful takers in academia for sciency sounding agitprop.

It obviously worked on you.

DavidAppell
April 13, 2016 at 10:42 PM

“I was first introduced to the “CO2 is a greenhouse gas” by my Biology professor, in the early ’70s. I asked “how” then, and regularly since. Still no answer.”

And you’re too lazy to go read about it for yourself?

Seriously, this is trivial: the Earth emits infared radiation, and CO2 (and other GHGs) absorb it. They then re-emit it in a random direction, some of which goes downward and warms the surface.

What’s keeping you from understanding this? And how can you have an opinion on global warming if you don’t understand the most basic part of the science?

BigWaveDave
April 14, 2016 at 9:57 PM

No, this is not trivial.

There is no physical theory that supports “the Earth emits infrared radiation, and CO2 (and other GHGs) absorb it. They then re-emit it in a random direction, some of which goes downward and warms the surface.” The only radiation from the atmosphere with any ability to increase surface temperature comes from latent heat released as water vapor condenses, and this mostly only slows surface temperature decay.

The “greenhouse effect” is a hypothesis formed through a misapplication of information gained from a myopic irrelevant perspective. Its existence is supported mainly by the clever fiction that average solar insolation that strikes the surface should determine average surface temperature, and that since the average measured surface temperature is 33+ deg C higher than the value thus reached, the difference must be due to back radiation.

The problems with this fiction are the solar energy received isn’t constant or uniform. It doesn’t consider the surface temperatures reached and solar energy stored as sensible heat and especially solar energy stored as latent heat during the day that is released sometime later and likely at a different location.

Can you offer any physical evidence the ,”greenhouse effect” exists, or are you going to continue to insist in zombie like fashion that randomly re-emitted infrared radiation and not the Sun is what should determine average surface temperature?

Now, how would you got about calculating how much of a temperature increase is caused by a certain increase in atmo CO2? Think.

BigWaveDave
April 15, 2016 at 2:39 AM

Not so fast. How do you get “huge” from something that is minuscule, and most likely imperceptible?

You have still not answered the first question.

How can a few hundred ppm CO2 in the atmosphere have any measurable warming effect on Earth’s surface?

DavidAppell
April 15, 2016 at 2:40 AM

I said your admission was “huge.” Read harder.

BigWaveDave
April 15, 2016 at 7:12 AM

Explain once.

BigWaveDave
April 15, 2016 at 7:31 AM

How so? The colder atmosphere still doesn’t warm the surface.

DavidAppell
April 15, 2016 at 2:43 AM

“How can a few hundred ppm CO2 in the atmosphere have any measurable warming effect on Earth’s surface?”

Imagine you are asked to throw a ball and hit one of mulitiple targets on the side of a barn.

There are N targets, each of area A.

Does your probability of hitting a target depend only on N?

No, of course not. It also depends on how large the targets are. It depends on the product N*A.

It’s the same with CO2. You are only considering N, and not considering A and the product N*A. And CO2 has a large A.

BigWaveDave
April 15, 2016 at 6:57 AM

Irrelevant Bullshit!

BigWaveDave
April 15, 2016 at 7:47 AM

What are you trying to say?

You already agreed that the energy added by IR to CO2 gets shared kinetically with some of the 2500 or so molecules of other gases that are nearby, so that CO2 can’t radiate back at a higher temperature.

But you are the one who thinks there is enough cold downwelling radiation from CO2 or some such thing to warm the surface.

So you need to explain how you think the colder atmosphere can do this,

BigWaveDave
April 15, 2016 at 7:10 AM

I wouldn’t, because it is insignificant and irrelevant. If you think CO2 warms the surface, explain how.

BigWaveDave
April 15, 2016 at 7:30 AM

I wouldn’t, because it is irrelevant and insignificant. But, if you think it is significant, you show the calc.

Hint: Take the amount of energy added to the CO2 (T^4surf -T^4CO2 molecule) X consts, and divide it up amongst the other 2500 + 1CO2 molecules, then divide the increase in hea by specific heat of (other molecules + 1CO2) molecule to calculate temp.

DavidAppell
April 15, 2016 at 2:27 AM

Use your physics expertise…..

DavidAppell
April 15, 2016 at 2:35 AM

“But, here is another question for you.
Does heated air rise?”

I am sure you can answer this question for yourself.

Planes fly at about 30,000 ft. Is the atmosphere there warmer than it is at the surface?

Why or why not?

BigWaveDave
April 15, 2016 at 2:55 AM

Why can’t you stay with the subject and answer a question? Is it ADD?

The air temperature colder at 30K ft. but its potential temperature might be close to the same and could even be warmer. But that has nothing to do with radiation.

I’ll address why, only after you answer the questions I have already asked. You can start with “Does heated air rise?.

DavidAppell
April 15, 2016 at 2:57 AM

You asked if heated air rises?

Can’t you address this question using your own expertise in physics? If it does, why is the atmosphere colder at 30,000 ft than it is at sea level?

DavidAppell
April 15, 2016 at 3:05 AM

“You can start with “Does heated air rise?.”

You keep telling me you have great expertise in physics, and then you keep asking me basic questions.

Why?

Why is the atmosphere colder at 30 kft than at the surface?

BigWaveDave
April 15, 2016 at 3:18 AM

I keep asking you, because so far you your responses suggest that you are just an idiot troll, probably paid, with no interest in understanding Atmospheric Physics.

The 30K ft. air isn’t being compressed by the weight of air above it as much as the air at the surface.

DavidAppell
April 15, 2016 at 3:25 AM

“The 30K ft. air isn’t being compressed by the weight of air above it as much as the air at the surface.”

Then why do temperatures rise in the stratosphere, compared to the tropospause?

Or are you saying heated air doesn’t always rise?

BigWaveDave
April 15, 2016 at 3:52 AM

There isn’t much air up there above the stratosphere, so collisions between molecules are rare. Molecules can reach very high velocities which on a per molecule basis translates to high temperature. There also isn’t much heat.

But you are shifting goalposts again, get back to the troposphere, troll, and answer the questions in the context they were asked. The CO2 molecule absorbs some IR and heats the 2500 other molecules around it. You said Physics calls that an increase in temperature. I agree, but is it relevant to whether CO2 radiation contributes to surface temperature?

I asked how much and whether it would be hotter than the surface, and also asked if heated air rises.

So far you are batting zero.

DavidAppell
April 15, 2016 at 3:56 AM

“There also isn’t much heat.”

You need to learn the difference between heat and temperature.

BigWaveDave
April 15, 2016 at 6:01 AM

What makes you think that? There is too little mass to have much heat.

BigWaveDave
April 17, 2016 at 6:55 AM

The mass density above the stratosphere is too low for the atmosphere to have much heat. What makes you think otherwise?

DavidAppell
April 17, 2016 at 12:36 PM

“The mass density above the stratosphere is too low for the atmosphere to have much heat.”

“You said Physics calls that an increase in temperature. I agree, but is it relevant to whether CO2 radiation contributes to surface temperature?”

Answer your own question: if the atmosphere gains heat, does it warm the surface?

BigWaveDave
April 15, 2016 at 6:09 AM

Not if the surface is still at a higher temperature.

DavidAppell
April 15, 2016 at 3:58 AM

“….and also asked if heated air rises.”

You’ve said you have expertise in physics, degrees and awards and all that.

So I’m asking you to put your expertise to work and answer your own questions. If heated air rises, why is the upper troposphere cooler than the surface?

BigWaveDave
April 17, 2016 at 6:27 AM

The few molecules of air out of the ~2500 that get warmed slightly by our CO2 molecule that intercepted the radiation will become slightly more energetic and increase local pressure slightly which will cause some displacement which will encounter less resistance above, than below, so they will rise. As they rise, they gain potential energy and lose kinetic energy. When they reach the altitude where their energy is less than the other air molecules around them, they sink. After a few passes they find their place amongst molecules of equal energy.

Air at the top of the troposphere cools and its water vapor either condenses or freezes becoming very dense, possibly dense enough to not be overtaken by rising air from below, in which case it becomes rain snow. If it is overtaken by rising air, it will remain suspended in a visible cloud and either cool to space or be warmed by the Sun.

The dry air near the top of the troposphere eventually loses enough energy and sinks. As it does, it trades its potential energy for kinetic, and its temperature increases continuously to the surface.

Can you explain physically how and by how much a 100 ppm change in atmospheric CO2 concentration causes Earth’s surface temperature to change?

DavidAppell
April 17, 2016 at 12:26 PM

Bzzzzzzzt. Rising air loses energy (hence temperature) by doing the work of expansion, because there’s less pressure aloft.

Answer your own question, and compare it to reality, since you like to tout your qualifications in physics…..

BigWaveDave
April 19, 2016 at 6:58 AM

You are the one who claims authority from his degree in Physics. I’m sure you do have some degree, possibly even an advanced degree.

You called me a liar and claimed that I had never taken even one course in physics. Now, because I told you that was incorrect you are going to claim that I tout my qualifications.

There is a word for people like you, but it doesn’t excuse your style, allow your substitution of insults or change of subject, in lieu of an honest answer to the questions asked. Your continued failure to engage in any detailed discussion must only mean that you don’t really understand how your hypothesis works either.

Does sinking air compress? Does rising air have to do work if it is being displaced?

There is no theory of how surface warming would result from CO2 in the atmosphere, and there is real evidence that CO2 in the atmosphere isn’t controlled by human emissions.

DavidAppell
April 19, 2016 at 5:20 PM

“There is no theory of how surface warming would result from CO2 in the atmosphere….”

Wrong, of course, You just don’t understand the theory, so you think there is none, because you think you know everything.

I’d still like to know how you justify thinking you’re right and 100 years of tens of thousands of scientists are wrong. Talk about an ego!

DavidAppell
April 17, 2016 at 12:27 PM

“Can you explain physically how and by how much a 100 ppm change in atmospheric CO2 concentration causes Earth’s surface temperature to change?”

This is what scientists have been calculating since 1896!

Are you honestly now aware of the magnitude of work done to calculate CO2’s climate sensitivity??? I find that impossible to believe.

BigWaveDave
April 17, 2016 at 3:53 PM

Please don’t make me puke. The only thing they have done is try to correlate temperature with CO2. That worked for a while, then they had to start adjusting temperatures to agree.

The ghg hypothesis was not widely accepted until the ’90s. There is a physical explanation for surface temperature that does not involve “back radiation” from “ghg’s”.

I saw a notice relatively recently from Scientific American (could have been a couple yrs ago), that they had finally digitized issues from the ’60s & 70’s. I cancelled my subscription several years before, so I couldn’t check to see if “The Circulation of the Upper Atmosphere” by Reginald E Newell, Sci. Am. Mar ’64 was available online.
If you have access to it, you might find it interesting. I still have the hard copy. (I used it as reference material for my 7th grade science paper.)

I also have the “Scientific American Cumulative Index 1948 to 1978” in which I find the first and only article listed under the topic “greenhouse effect” was an alarmist piece in January ’78 by George Woodwell. I had the displeasure of interacting with some early “ghe” modelers 1n ’79 while I was in law school. The grant money corruption had begun.

DavidAppell
April 18, 2016 at 9:47 PM

“That worked for a while, then they had to start adjusting temperatures to agree.”

Do you understand why the raw data need adjusting?

DavidAppell
April 18, 2016 at 9:49 PM

“The ghg hypothesis was not widely accepted until the ’90s.”

Really??? I’m sure you can’t prove that.

In fact, the first realization of the greenhouse effect came from Fourier (yes, that Fourier) in 1827:

In an RC post in 2008, David Archer claimed the first use of the term “global warming” was in a 1975 paper. I know that I heard it had been brought up at the 1st Earth Summit that started “Earth Day”, but I also know that it wasn’t a main stream or widespread belief.

Have you found and read the article in Mar. 64 Scientific American by Reginald Newell that I suggested?

DavidAppell
April 19, 2016 at 8:06 PM

Why does it matter when the term “global warming” was first used? Earlier scientists clearly knew that industrial CO2 would warm the planet. Here is a big list of such papers and reports:

The popular nonsense that there is a serious threat from CO2 because of “global warming” is a relatively recent development.

Your list of garbage with false misleading information says nothing about how popular their stupid notions were when the garbage came out.

DavidAppell
April 19, 2016 at 9:21 PM

“The popular nonsense that there is a serious threat from CO2 because of “global warming” is a relatively recent development.”

Are you claiming that knowledge and understanding can’t change with time.

Once few people thought smoking was harmful. Then later lots of them did. Now everyone does.

Are you saying that first impressions are always right and can never be changed?

BigWaveDave
April 19, 2016 at 9:43 PM

Your parade of straw men won’t warm the planet either, even if they are on fire, and anyway, what makes you think only a few people thought smoking was harmful? It was common knowledge in the 50’s, and from a SA 100 yrs ago articles in the 90’s, it was known in the 1890’s.

What I am saying is that the notion of “greenhouse gasses” warming Earth’s surface is and has always been nonsense, and that younger generations have been systematically mislead to believe the nonsense by charlatans promoting a political agenda.

The fact is that there is no physical theory to support the “greenhouse gas” myth, or any kind of proof that cold warms hot.

DavidAppell
April 19, 2016 at 9:49 PM

“What I am saying is that the notion of “greenhouse gasses” warming Earth’s surface is and has always been nonsense”

You keep asking the same stupid irrelevant questions that I have already answered.

Why can’t you present a theory?

DavidAppell
April 19, 2016 at 11:51 PM

I’m not interested in playing around. You can’t answer these questions. Why not? What does it say about your misconceptions of physics?

1. Do all objects emit electromagnetic radiation?
2. Does EM radiation carry energy?
3. When EM radiation is absorbed by an object, does that object gain the radiation’s energy?
4. When an object absorbs energy, does its temperature increase?

DavidAppell
April 20, 2016 at 12:17 AM

“Why can’t you present a theory?”

I have, many times. If you are going to keep playing dumb games like this, I’m through with you.

DavidAppell
April 19, 2016 at 9:49 PM

Why is the Earth’s surface about 60 K than can be accounted for by the Sun?

BigWaveDave
April 19, 2016 at 9:56 PM

It isn’t. Your misconception results from your myopic view of the situation. There is no instantaneous equilibrium balance of in and out.

DavidAppell
April 19, 2016 at 10:01 PM

It isn’t? Prove that — with science and math.

I dare you.

BigWaveDave
April 19, 2016 at 11:42 PM

Sorry, you are too stupid to follow it, because it involves more than two steps.

The fact that you can offer nothing that proves the idiotic idea that cold warms hot says it all.

DavidAppell
April 19, 2016 at 11:54 PM

You don’t have any science or any math. Dumb. This stuff is covered in the beginning of any climate science course or textbook.

You don’t know any of it.

BigWaveDave
April 20, 2016 at 2:15 AM

I enjoy a good debate, especially one where ideas are discussed and I can learn something, but there’s no point in wasting time trying to correspond with someone who makes no attempt to offer any testable theory of their bog-standard belief, and who replies with only obfuscation and insult immediately, when any competing hypothesis or theory is presented.

If your only goal is to waste my time in this lonely corner of the webs, to what or whom do I owe this honor? Did you get a grant to become a climate troll? How much are they paying you? Do they pay you by the hour, number of comments replied to, number of words, … or what? Have you been doing it long?

DavidAppell
April 20, 2016 at 9:47 PM

“…there’s no point in wasting time trying to correspond with someone who makes no attempt to offer any testable theory of their bog-standard belief…”

AGW leaves all kinds of footprints on the climate, about which you know nothing, and won’t go learn about.

“AGW leaves all kinds of footprints on the climate, about which you know nothing, and won’t go learn about.”

First, you need to demonstrate that AGW exists. Otherwise what could leave the print?
If you think there is anything in the any where in the three sources you cite, explain what they presented, and how it shows there is AGW. Otherwise, you have only proved my point. You have no clue.

DavidAppell
April 21, 2016 at 11:55 PM

“First, you need to demonstrate that AGW exists.”

Trivial — simply use an orbiting satellite to capture the electromagnetic energy radiated by the planet at the top of its atmosphere — its intensity as a function of frequency. One get this:

Given the Sun’s irradiance, the Earth-Sun distance, and the Earth’s albedo, what is your calculation for the mean temperature of the Earth, to first-order?

Be sure to show your work, as they say.

BigWaveDave
April 19, 2016 at 11:50 PM

I’ve answered this more than once, It isn’t.

Why do you insist on asking the same stupid questions, instead of presenting a theory?

DavidAppell
April 20, 2016 at 12:01 AM

No, you have no answered it. You gave some bullsh*t hand waving argument that made no sense.

Do you know how to do physics and how to calculate things? I’ve seen no evidence that you do.

DavidAppell
April 20, 2016 at 12:09 AM

Oops, it’s 60 F, not 60 K. The greenhouse effect is about 30 K.

BigWaveDave
April 20, 2016 at 3:18 AM

“Why is the Earth’s surface about 60 [K C] than can be accounted for by the Sun?”

It is bog standard stuff. You presume the entire globe is a black body receiving a uniform share of insolation (1/4 zenith) which would only heat the surface to a temperature that is about 33 deg. C less than the average of twice daily readings from some thermometers in various places around the globe a little above land, and a little below the ocean surfaces. You find the location with a temperature closer what was calculated from average insolation somewhere near the top of the troposphere, and attribute the difference to “greenhouse gasses back radiating IR from the atmosphere”.

The problem with the uniform 1/4 zenith insolation is that it bears no resemblance to the the actual pattern and intensities of insolation, and the surface, especially the ocean surface does not behave as a black body, and radiation is not the primary mode of heat transfer from the surface.

It is 33+ deg C warmer at the surface than the average temperature Earth radiates to space because the atmosphere, surface and oceans collect, convert, store, transport deliver and reject the solar energy that is received variably and non uniformly with various combinations of conduction, convection, transport of mass containing heat and radiation processes.

The radiating gasses play their biggest role at the top of the troposphere where they radiate to space at a temperature closer to that calculated for the uniform 1/4 zenith insulation.

DavidAppell
April 20, 2016 at 9:48 PM

“Why is the Earth’s surface about 60 [K C] than can be accounted for by the Sun?”

A change of 60 K = a change of 60 C.

And you say you have expertise in physics????

BigWaveDave
April 21, 2016 at 2:15 AM

Yes, I meant F, and was only trying to include your change in the quote.

It isn’t surprising though, that you believe typing is an essential part of Physics.

DavidAppell
April 20, 2016 at 9:53 PM

“The problem with the uniform 1/4 zenith insolation is that it bears no resemblance to the the actual pattern and intensities of insolation, and the surface, especially the ocean surface does not behave as a black body, and radiation is not the primary mode of heat transfer from the surface.”

This is basic, basic physics — the factor of 1/4 comes from the ratio of Earth’s surface area, across which solar heating is spread, to the cross-sectional area on which sunlight is absorbed.

The resulting basic basic equation for the Earth’s average surface temperature is

(1-albedo)(solar irradiance)/4 = (sigma)*(temperature^4).

=> T = 255 K = – 18 C = 0 F.

Again, this is covered in the first chapter of all textbooks on climate.

BigWaveDave
April 21, 2016 at 2:32 AM

And this adds or detracts from my argument how?

With “(1-albedo)(solar irradiance)/4 = (sigma)*(temperature^4).

=> T = 255 K = – 18 C = 0 F”

are you not averaging by dividing by 4 the zenith insolation reaching the surface to calculate a temperature?.

If the only form in which you can accept something is the form with which you are familiar, it confirms my observation that you don’t think, you only repeat. Correct? (Refute with caution. You might be able to this in your defense some day.)

It is not surprising that you made no attempt to address anything of substance.

DavidAppell
April 21, 2016 at 11:53 PM

My calculation is correct. (It’s been known for over a century.) The factor of 1/4th comes from the area of which the sun’s energy delivery is distributed (4*pi*R^2) to the cross-sectional area of its delivery (pi*R^2).

If you think this is wrong, explain why, and give your own equation.

Robert
April 22, 2016 at 12:41 PM

I think BigWaveDave would be better able to explain that whoooooosh he heard when that went…..

All you’ve written is gobbleygook with no scientific content whatsoever.

None.

DavidAppell
April 19, 2016 at 9:51 PM

“The fact is that there is no physical theory to support the “greenhouse gas” myth, or any kind of proof that cold warms hot.”

You are refusing to answer my four questions. Because you know what conclusion they imply.

1. Do all objects emit electromagnetic radiation?
2. Does EM radiation carry energy?
3. When EM radiation is absorbed by an object, does that object gain the radiation’s energy?
4. When an object absorbs energy, does its temperature increase?

BigWaveDave
April 19, 2016 at 11:46 PM

Is any of this relevant to the question? Explain how cold heats hot.

If there is a physical theory to support the “greenhouse gas” myth, why can’t you state it?

DavidAppell
April 19, 2016 at 11:52 PM

“Explain how cold heats hot.”

I already have, and you know it.

Answer these questions:

1. Do all objects emit electromagnetic radiation?
2. Does EM radiation carry energy?
3. When EM radiation is absorbed by an object, does that object gain the radiation’s energy?
4. When an object absorbs energy, does its temperature increase?

DavidAppell
April 19, 2016 at 8:06 PM

You don’t read the links I put up. Why should I read yours?

BigWaveDave
April 19, 2016 at 9:14 PM

There you go, calling me a liar again. I didn’t post a link, but I did suggest a paper that might give you some insight.

It seems clear from your responses that you have no interest in or desire to learn how anything works,

You are more likely paid to memorize and promote propaganda.

DavidAppell
April 19, 2016 at 9:20 PM

I didn’t call you a liar. I wrote, “You don’t read the links I put up.” And you clearly don’t, because you are unaware of the information in them, like why we know the buildup of atmospheric CO2 is due to man.

“Explain how it can be that anthropogenic CO2 production has increased nearly four fold”

Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.

Pre-industrial CO2 was 280 ppm. Now it’s 408 ppm.

That isn’t a 4-fold increase.

Admit you were wrong.

DavidAppell
April 20, 2016 at 9:43 PM

No, it’s not “shoot the messenger” — Salby is wrong, has usually been wrong, and as a consequence has no standing in the scientific community.

Your biggest problem is that you are not sufficiently skeptical.

BigWaveDave
April 21, 2016 at 1:56 AM

A bigger problem seems to be that you have the impression that you know something. So far, all you have shown is that you are gullible and need no proof or understanding to take sides with a position that you have been told is science. You continue to confirm the obvious truth of this with your refusal to offer any sort of proof.

Dr. Salby’s analysis shows that the concentration of atmospheric CO2 does not follow anthropogenic emissions. Instead of finding something in his analysis that is false, you instead attack the person, then claim you aren’t shooting the messenger. Why? Is it because he was already shot by your boss?

DavidAppell
April 22, 2016 at 12:05 AM

Salby is wrong. I’m not going to waste my time laying that all out for you (someone who never reads anything anyway) all that is wrong with Salby’s claims. Such stuff is all over the Web, if you had the gumption to go look for it.